Recording in progress.

I heard the bell, so it's six fifteen somewhere.

We're gonna get started.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Pacific Grove City Council.

Uh it's Wednesday, November 5th, 2025, 615 PM.

We're here in Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove.

I will now call this meeting to order.

And um I will note that all council members are present tonight, and that um I will ask my colleague, Councilmember Walking Stick to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you very much.

And now I'll entertain a motion to approve this agenda.

Second uh we have a motion by Amelia, second by uh Paduri.

Uh any discussion on that.

Seeing none, take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none passes unanimously, we'll take the agenda as stated.

And tonight I'll invite uh uh for presentations.

We do have one.

We have uh safe streets together, Monterey County campaign, and I'll invite Ariana Green from Tamsi to make that presentation.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Ariana Green.

I'm a principal transportation planner with the transportation agency from Monterey County.

And tonight I'm here to find out if Pacific Grove would like to be a pilot city for our safe streets together campaign.

Um the campaign is a countywide traffic safety um effort that's led by Tamsi and the county and uh Live Well, formerly known as Blue Zones.

And um the purpose of this campaign will be to bring awareness to key traffic safety issues in each of our communities across the county.

But um even more than that, we'd like to take it a step further and actually try out um methods that would result in long-term behavior change.

Um actually changing harmful behaviors to safe ones.

And um we feel it will be really important to um the campaign to really work with community members and really have each campaign driven by community.

And so what we'd like to do is try out a process where we form a community steering committee um and really let the community lead and develop the campaign.

TAMSEE would facilitate these steering committees, and then we have funding to produce um materials, initial materials for the campaign.

So um I know that this is not an action item tonight.

Um, but if this is sounding good, then I can come back with a written proposal at a future meeting.

And that's it.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, we'll have to get with the staff in order to get all that done.

I don't want to run afoul of the pro procedures, but uh not having on the agenda, but we appreciate the the shout and we'll obviously look into it and I'll have staff work or we'll have the staff work with you on that.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Thank you for for uh so I just wanted to mention that this is being that this is a presentation only.

We're not gonna make an action, but uh I did want to call out that the um I'm technically speaking, I'm supportive of this and and just a quick question for me.

Like noting that we are gonna identify the safe routes to schools, kind of like kind of like leaning towards that route, making behavioral change.

Does that put the CD at a at a I would say in a good spot to secure grants if we were to kind of change the infrastructure in those spots too?

That's a really good question.

I think that what this process will the working with the steering committee and the community, we're gonna be focused on campaign and messaging, but I think it's also an opportunity for us to have conversations with community and for them to highlight areas that need infrastructure improvement or they like to see infrastructure improvement.

And because we don't have an official safe routes to school planned for the city, I think that we could document that and use that in grant applications.

Okay, thank you.

And I did want to call us out if uh if uh just for awareness that the uh the city is didn't like have a have a relationship with blue zones too.

So I think we're just stepping in the right direction.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'd encourage you to provide the staff with more more detail on on the entire thing, and then we could look into that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um okay, let's move on to um council and staff announcements.

We'll start with the closed session report on closed session 3A.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I have a report.

Uh the city council met in closed session on Tuesday, October 28th at 12 p.m.

And then earlier this evening to discuss public employee appointment of the city attorney is authorized by government code 54957.

The council has selected a preferred city attorney firm at this point to move forward with in legal services agreement.

We'll be coming on an upcoming city council agenda.

Thank you very much.

So that's our report out.

Um, and now I will I have an announcement tonight uh as a council announcement.

Uh Richard Stillwell, a beloved figure in Pacific Grove has passed away at 95.

He was a dedicated firefighter, businessman, and philanthropist.

He contributed to the community through various initiatives, including building the Tommy Stillwell basketball court and the Stillwell Children's Pool.

A celebration of his life will be held on November 21st at 2 p.m.

at the Methodist Church.

In order to allow enough time to plan for a memory of Mr.

Pacific Grove, as he was affectionately known to be recognized by the city council here, uh we will be asking staff to place a special presentation to the family on the November 19th agenda.

And due to the timing of his death and our publication requirements, that is why we were doing it on that date.

So that's just uh that's my announcement for tonight.

Um my my thoughts go and go out to the family and uh now we'll recognize someone else to make another announcement.

Mayor Proton Emilio.

Thinking for that announcement uh here.

Um November 11th is Veterans Day, and we'll be honoring veterans that day.

And all is are invited to Veterans Day, November 11th.

It's 11 p.m.

11 a.m.

Uh 11 a.m.

November 11th at the lighthouse.

That's November 11th.

11 a.m.

at the lighthouse.

And we're gonna have a guest speaker and uh several other uh ceremonial uh things, but it's a great uh event.

Uh invite all the public to attend.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman McDonnell.

Thank you.

Um, I also wanted to announce that the climate action and adaptation plan will be released for public comment later this month.

Um so there will be a minimum of a 30-day review period.

So just wanted to let people know to be on the lookout for that.

Thank you.

Councilman Morell.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Uh, I just wanted to say thank you to the people who reached out to me and my family.

Uh in the loss of my brother-in-law.

And he was also my served father.

And he was a complicated guy, but in the early 70s, he ran for city council in a small, well, was then a small town in the Central Valley.

And I was really young, but I remember him going door to door and leaving flyers and seeing his yard signs everywhere.

Uh, and watching in winner seat.

And even though later in life we found ourselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Uh, he was really happy that I chose public service.

And he gave us a way to connect again.

And we were able to talk about running and governing in a small town.

And um I think it it just made more clear why I did what I did and why I'm just so happy to be here.

So thank you to everybody.

Uh, I just wanted to make sure that I said thank you.

That's great.

Thank you so much.

Uh anyone else?

All right.

Um okay.

Um, general public comment deals with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the council that are not on the regular agenda.

Um, who shall we welcome from chambers?

We'll start with in chambers folks.

Ms.

Gorbeck.

Yes, my name is Susan Goldbeck, and I'm a resident of Pacific Grove.

And I just wanted to say that I hope everyone comes to Richard Stillwell's celebration of life, because it was quite a live, and he was quite a guy, and we'll really miss him mostly because he was a lot of fun and did so much for the term that he loved.

That's why they called him Mr.

PG.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, member city council staff, public.

My name is Mo Amar, and I'm here before you this evening to tell you how much I love and adore the new design of Kimpton Hotel downtown.

It fits so well with the library and the museum and the park and the chamber of commerce.

It is unlike what you're seeing in other communities to the north and to the south.

Cookie cutter, block buildings that could be anywhere in the USA.

That is what Pacific Grove was all about.

I want to thank the council for approving this project.

I know three council members were on the council when this project was approved, and we rejected the cruise line design.

Remember that?

We said no way.

Uh Pacific Grove wins a lot of awards for charm quaintness.

I think the charm is because of the people of Pacific Grove, and the quaintness is because of the architecture.

And that's directly related to what you do, and that's why we're we're a winner.

The design of this hotel is unique and it fits perfectly, and it and that's why people come here.

Once the hotel opens up, I'm really happy to report.

I've had the pleasure of seeing the rooms and looking at what the room rates are going to be.

I think it's gonna be a game changer for Pacific Grove.

We welcome all visitors, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

We love them.

We we enjoy them, we want to share the time with them.

However, in this case, the clients who will be staying at Kimton will be very high end because of the rates and the type of rooms and services being provided.

Secondly, and lastly, we are really fortunate that Kimpton did an excellent job recruiting a top-notch GM, and she's with us this evening.

And I'd like to introduce Julia Shallon, who will say a few words.

Julia, hello, city council members.

Thank you, Mo, for inviting me here this evening.

Um, I really look forward to getting to know all of you and working with you to bring so many great things to Pacific Grove.

Um, as he mentioned, my name is Julia Shalland.

I spent the last three years at Ventana down in Big Sur.

Um and I was recruited to Ventana from Denver, Colorado, where I spent 10 years of my career with Four Seasons Hotels.

So I'm no stranger to luxury hospitality and food and beverage.

And I'm just so excited to see this project come to life very soon.

I also am grateful that I am joined by some of my team this evening.

They're not gonna come up here and stand with me, but that's okay.

I have um my executive chef Aaron Rayer, who we recruited from Stokes Adobe.

Give us a wave, Aaron.

And I have um Nikel Escalona, who's gonna be our director of food and beverage next to him, and then Gail Smith, who's my director of finance.

Um, so grateful that they're here with me.

Our hotel, if you don't know already, is going to feature 99 guest rooms, um, a signature restaurant called the Caledonian, and many inviting public spaces like the beautiful courtyard right in the center of the hotel that's coming together quite nicely.

Um we are currently in the process of building our team uh when we're at full capacity.

We're looking to employ 90 to 100 hospitality professionals.

Um, I think Kempton is really committed in the cities that they're in to be part of the communities that they serve.

And as I mentioned, I'm just really excited to get to know all of you and be a part of making the community improvements um as needed.

Um as you know, with the next few months we prepare for opening at the end of January.

Um, it's a busy few months for us, but once we are open and have a little bit more free time on our hands, um, please let us know how we can stay engaged.

That is all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We really appreciate the update.

Yeah, welcome.

There you go.

Any questions?

Uh no.

No, it's a time.

Shop easy instead.

So do we have um something for the officers that we need hit?

Okay, got it.

All right.

Um chambers wishing to speak.

Please come forward, cue up.

If you wish to speak, come forward.

Thank you.

I just noted that the clock is still at seven rather than six, if that could be remedied.

And there's no light.

So if someone could check on both of those, maybe it has to do with the timing.

But um, that's all.

Thank you.

Which clock?

Oh.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for the update.

Hey.

Uh nice to see you guys again, City Council.

Uh, I was here a couple weeks ago, or maybe two months ago, something like that, to invite you to Pacific Grove Arts Center's 56th anniversary.

Uh I'm here yet again.

Uh Mr.

Mayor and esteemed council to invite you to yet again another event.

Um, so we're actually going to be holding Monterey County's first ever independent animation film festival down at the Pacific Grove Arts Center.

Um, this is big for arts and community, especially here in the Monterey County.

We're hoping to make this something that's annual, something that's a cornerstone of our cultural exhibits here in Monterey.

Um, and I I'd like to extend an invitation to all of you to join us December 7th.

Um it's gonna happen from 6 p.m.

till 12 a.m.

I know you can't stay up that late.

That's fine.

Um, but we got a lot of animation, and we're very, very proud to say that while it's uh student facilitated, sorry about that, it's uh student facilitated and run as an event.

Uh all of the content featured there is actually from student or not students, but uh industry professionals from across the world.

We're very proud to showcase a diverse lineup from people of all types of ethnicities, ages, and genders.

Um, and we hope that you guys will join us on December 7th.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello again, everybody.

Uh my name is Jameson.

For those of you who who don't know me or don't remember me from last time, I was here with uh my fellow board member and festival director Sam.

Um I just wanted to again uh uh hammer in the uh the warm invitation to everybody on the council and the entire city of Pacific Grove.

Uh this event is welcome to everybody, although the the seats do cap out at 360 because of the art center's space.

So um purchase your tickets as soon as possible.

But uh that's beyond the point.

I just wanted to also um speak a little bit about the lineup that we're gonna have that's gonna be here in Pacific Grove.

Um we have partnered with how uh for housing support with the Solomar Conference Grounds, and we have um animators who have credits from Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, uh Adult Swim, some some stuff that people are very familiar with.

Uh one of them even worked on Spongebob.

So these are some pretty talented individuals that are coming to Pacific Grove for the weekend of the uh December 7th.

Um so I also wanted to thank our our sponsors, including the Arts Council of Monterey and Fairway Shopping Center, um, because they they helped us make this event possible, and um we appreciate their support as well as Captain and Stoker and uh the youth arts collective as well.

So um I just wanted to thank you all and hope to see you all there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So we buy us for that that uh event at the back.

Um go to the online callers now.

Hi, this is Nina Beattie again.

Um from November 11th through 16th, the Monterey Bay Aquarium plans to conduct high decibel sonar surveys of the Monterey Canyon edges and floors.

This area, as you know, is rich with marine life, which is very, very vulnerable to these high decibels.

The aquarium is doing this for topographic mapping, despite the known harm.

Jay Murray, many of you may have seen his letter in the Carmel Pine cone, and it was a reminder of how toxic these sonar surveys are to the ocean and all its marine creatures.

The aquarium's new research vessel, the David Packard uses 237 decibels.

It's much higher decibel levels than its previous ships equipment, which was already blasting at Saturn 5 rocket levels.

This will maim and kill marine life from plankton, fish, otters, jellyfish, dolphins, including the unique and rare creatures that live in the canyon, including those specially adapted to the depths.

But the aquarium is doing can be done with other means that do not harm marine life or not be done at all.

The ocean's health is critical, and these are anti-science and anti-ocean actions by the aquarium.

And with the bay already impacted by the Navy sonar, it's critical that it isn't compounded by the aquarium and other companies that do these surveys.

Pacific Grove is dependent on ocean-based tourism, including scuba diving and the aquarium.

As the aquarium's practices become known, including that it has captured and implanted hundreds of otters with radio transmitters with known health impacts and no public review or consent to this animal abuse.

People are going to cease to visit the aquarium and then cease to come to Pacific Grove.

An unknown number of otters have died in the process of what the aquarium's been doing.

And this can impact PG's economic future.

So I ask the city of Pacific Grove and the public to if they if the aquarium is resistant to making any changes in their policy, then we really have to boycott the aquarium because this is so antithetical to any of us who care about the ocean and its health.

The ocean is critical.

And if it's going to be abused by the aquarium, the aquarium is not a good actor.

And they need to have the repercussions, economic repercussions, and the reputation that of what it's doing.

Please, please take action against what the aquarium's doing.

It's uh the 11th is when this is going to be starting, and that cannot be.

It just cannot be.

Thank you.

Colleen Ingram.

Yes, uh, thank you for taking my call.

I was um uh expecting the chief of police to uh be making a report on the flock license plate readers.

Um so this is what my comment is about.

I support public.

I'm sorry, gonna interrupt with uh an item on the agenda for this.

So your comment will be taken at that time.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Lisa Ciani.

Thank you.

Um November is Native American Heritage Month.

I hope council members and all the public will make an effort this month and beyond to learn more about the indigenous ancestors of Central California and the concerns of their descendants working to restore their culture and practice traditional stewardship of land and water, which can inform responses to climate change.

I'd like to share my personal indigenous land acknowledgement.

Excuse me, Pacific Grove has been inhabited for thousands of years by Native peoples.

I gratefully acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded traditional homelands of the Illoney Costano and Essalin Nation and their ancestors.

I respect and want to honor the diverse indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the land on which we're meeting.

Ocean, which is the Essulan pronunciation of the acronym for Illone Costano and Eslan Nation, respect Mother Earth.

Their ancestors followed sustainable land use practices.

I respect the elders, past, present, and emerging, for they hold the memories, traditions, culture, and hopes of the Esselin people.

I hope Ocean will someday have a greater presence in Pacific Grove and can share with this community as they themselves continue to learn their native language and culture that were prohibited for so long and their traditional ways of life.

There is so much to learn from them.

Currently, I I've learned that the list will be on uh a website developed by photographer Michelle Magdal Magdalena called let's see at at Michelle Magdalena.com or maybe Magdalena Meg Magdalena.mag.com.

Um I'm sorry, I just learned about this today.

Uh that it's a local uh arts and culture magazine.

Uh, but I'm sure there must be a list on online in general as well.

Um so um thank you for letting me make this land acknowledgement.

Thank you.

Jane Haynes.

Good evening.

magazine uh but i'm sure it there must be a list on online in general as well um so um thank you for letting me make this land acknowledgement thank you jane haines good evening the public was told that there would be an announcement at the outset of tonight's uh council meeting about the council's choice of a city attorney i haven't heard such an announcement i respectfully request that someone please make the the announcement so that the public will know whether the city council has decided to make the appointment of the new city attorney as a public employee or as an independent contractor functioning as a city officer that's what I request thank you good night thank you we do not have any more online public comment okay thank you very much gonna go ahead and close general public comment and I recognize city manager thank you Mr.

Mayor um I was a little bit asleep at the wheel earlier when we went past this section so well thank you for backtracking uh we have some safety information to talk about tonight it's actually more on the positive side as many of this is a little bit bittersweet but as many have heard chief miller from Monterey Fire is retiring at the end of this year so we found that out late last week um but the good news is today we found out who the knee chief will be and he is um assistant chief uh more and he's um been with the with the department since 1997 he's with us tonight so if you'd like to say uh at least say hello for really quickly that would be great um also he can tell you how many years but you've been in PG for quite a long time right so we like I said bittersweet we have good news and that uh we never another great chief ready to step in this role Mr.

Mayor Counsel um sorry very humbled to be standing before you as a 14th fire chief of Monterey Fire and the first internally promoted uh fire chief since 1980 um I actually started my career here in Pacific Grove as a volunteer firefighter in 1995 got hired in Monterey in 1997 and been there ever since so I take a lot of pride in that um I take a lot of pride in representing the men and women of the Monterey Fire Department and also to serve the community which I live I born and raised in Pacific Grove my wife and I live here raised my children here so I have a lot of pride in that um you know we've had a great relationship with the city of Pacific Grove since 2008 and I look forward to that continued relationship.

So thank you and uh I'll be seeing you soon.

Thank you very much Chief I'd also like to invite Chief Day up we have some new personnel to introduce you tonight.

I gotta have it in order here.

Good evening Smith and honorable city council it's my esteemed privilege to introduce three brand new experienced lateral officers to the PG family.

First right here to my left I have officer Sonny Picasso Sonny is a Salinas native who is coming to us from the Hurricane Police Department in Hurricane Utah she's been working there for about the last three and a half years in the patrol division and also as a defensive tactics instructor.

She is a graduate of the Hallmark Charter High School and she enjoys outdoor activities such as camping and hiking and spending lots of time with her kiddos and the family.

Next to her left I would like to introduce officer Alex Burnaby Alex is a Fresno native a graduate of Clovis North High School he is coming to us from the Auburn police department and Auburn Washington where he's worked for the last two years in the patrol division.

He holds a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and also enjoys outdoor activities and spending time with his friends and family last but certainly not least it's my pleasure to introduce officer Jacob Gonzalez to the far end he was also a Salinas native and a graduate of I went butcher this Ellisol high school high school he has approximately eight years of experience he's worked with the Greenfield Police Department Watsonville in King City and ironically enough also enjoys outdoor activities and spending time with his family kiddos.

So um I just want to say of these three I am especially proud of them they are on the field training program and they are killing it.

So there's really no doubt in my mind that the citizens of this community are going to, you know, essentially the level and and amount of experience they're bringing is just super huge for our community.

So there's definitely a different level of service when you're dealing with officers who have been in the field for a few years compared to those that are just coming out of the academy.

There's that learning curve.

So again, very proud of them.

Um I'm going to invite each three up to the podium just briefly to make a few comments and starting with Sonny.

This is my daughter Scarlett and Jolene.

Um, and I just wanted to thank you guys for the opportunity to come and be introduced to you guys and just to serve the community.

It's an honor to be here.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alex Burnby, uh, thanks again for having us.

Um it's nice meeting you guys all for the first time.

Uh, been on patrol here for the last two weeks.

Um, definitely learn a lot and excited to serve the city of Pacific Grove.

I live here in the city, so um, I take it to heart when I'm contacting the community members, and it just uh means a lot to be able to serve the community that I live in.

Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Jacob Gonzalez, nice to meet you guys.

Thanks for the opportunity to uh work for the city of Pacific Grove.

Um, I'm a native to the county, and uh I I've been here on Phil training for about a month now.

Uh looking forward to being out there solo and uh helping um the community, you know, build a relationship uh with community policing and go from there.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

Welcome to all of you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Chief.

Okay.

That's okay.

We're moving on.

Thank you very much.

We're looking forward to having the service of those officers in the community and and working with Chief Moore.

Um, so move on to the consent agenda.

This is deals with routine and non-controversial items and may include actional resolutions ordinance or other public hearings, for which testimony is not anticipated.

So at this time, I'll ask if anyone online or in chambers wishes, or I'm sorry, council members wish to pull any items first.

Get first cut.

Okay, and then anyone on in chambers or online wish to pull a consent agenda item.

We have one.

One taker.

Ms.

Haynes.

No, I didn't have a comment.

Oh, thank you, Ms.

Haynes.

Okay, bring it back to the council.

Uh Ms.

Ariola, is there any hands, raise?

No more.

Okay.

We'll bring back to the council for action on consent.

Uh I'll go ahead and move uh on the consent items first.

All right, motion to approve consent by Amelia.

Second, second by Dury.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, I'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none passes unanimously.

And we will move right into 11A public hearings, adoption of a resolution establishing fees, etc.

And I will recognize our city manager on item 11A.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, this item, as it's coming up here, is a follow-up to two items that you recently saw.

Um second here.

There we go.

Uh first slide, please.

So at the um September 17th meeting, uh, the council approved an ordinance that authorized the hiring of a outside hearing officer for our admin sites and for our parking tickets and um basically those two items.

Uh so with that, you know, also comes new fees that we're gonna are going to be needed.

So we've we've gone and reviewed research from the firm who provides these outside services.

So this firm is called Turbo Data.

And um, so for this category of things that we're bringing to you tonight, these are new fees.

So we can go to the next slide, we'll talk about the next category of fees.

And then as I mentioned, there were two different items that are coming together here.

On October 15th, the council also provided direction uh regarding the city's resolution remoralizing our potable water.

Um, within that, we also discussed whether we should further discount the entitlement water.

We've been at 30% for quite quite a few years of a discount.

And with the with the new potable water coming online and reallocating the water, uh the council discussed and thought it might it make sense to give it a um the shot of going to 60% discount at least through the end of this fiscal year.

So we can revisit that decision at the end of this fiscal year.

So if you go to the next slide, please.

This slide just memorializes the fees that we're actually establishing as of the action tonight within the resolution that that you'd be taking action on.

So the first one is um the hearing examine officer, and these are for parking citations only.

There'll be a charge of 40 um per request to have a have a um a hearing.

And then on other types of administrative citations, things that might come out of code enforcement, leaf blowers, um, other violations that might be happening.

That per cost hearing would be 50 dollars.

Um so the the um applicant or we'll say the appellant, I guess, who who files for this application will need to pay that fee in order to have their appeal heard by the hearing officer.

If they go to the hearing officer and they win their case, then we'll have to reimburse that cost.

Um, so this is again is a straight pass through.

So the city is not keeping any of this money at this point.

Uh the other fee that's being adjusted again is we're just changing that 30% discount to 60% discount through June 30th, 2026.

And that concludes the presentation.

All right, we'll go ahead and go ahead and go out to public comment on this item.

We do not have one miss Dahmer.

Thank you.

Um I am not a proponent of outsourcing.

It seems like all the things that we could administratively handle before are being outsourced.

And I do not think it serves the citizens well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We do not have any more online public comment.

All right, we'll bring it back to the council closed public comment on this item, 11A, bring back to the council.

Um, this seems to be a memorialization of previously made decisions.

So I'll entertain a motion on this.

Thank you.

Second.

We have a 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?

Hearing none, passes unanimously.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Moganson.

Thank you, council members, and we'll move on to item 12A, and we will recognize the city attorney, Mr.

Pearick.

Well, thank you for recognizing me, Mayor.

Um you got it.

Um, this item is the historic uh resources inventory uh and and the issue of uh property owner consent.

Um, and if we get the next slide, please.

So by way of background, um, there was uh an agenda item uh on September 17th of 2025.

Um Councilmember Garfield had uh submitted that.

Um, and in that uh agenda report, there was a statement here with respect to inclusion in the uh historic resources inventory, which may add or subtract value from property and should be disclosed to a property buyer upon sale as being pertinent to the value of the property.

Um also says that to include a property on the inventory without the owner's consent can add complications, cost, and negatively impact the value of their property.

Um finally, perhaps in practice, property owners are consulted or notified, but this section says that the owner has no say, and um the this particular paragraph was followed by the next slide, which I'll go to now.

So further background, again, this is a quote from that uh agenda previous agenda report says inclusion on the inventory is based on the criteria listed in municipal code section 2376025, and it's not limited to a specific year of construction.

Then there was a sentence that was lined out, which says the consent of the property owner is not required for inclusion on the inventory.

Um the Pacific uh Grove Historic Context Statement, guidelines for historic assessment, and historic resources inventory can be found on the city's historic resources webpage.

So that is the background by way of what was included in the um agenda report of September 17th.

I was asked at that meeting to do some research with respect to the historic inventory and the issue of property owner consent in terms of whether or not that a person who owns property would whether their consent would be required to be added to the inventory or not.

Next slide, please.

So we start with chapter 23.76.025 sets forth the evaluation criteria to be considered.

2376030 is the historic resources inventory, historic determination.

And the beginning of that section does say that properties may, and I've bolded the word may be added to or deleted from the historic resources inventory, either by initiation of the historic resources committee or by submittal of a historic determination application by the property owner.

So the takeaway from these two sections is that there are evaluation criteria and that those criteria are used to uh determine whether or not the property qualifies.

But the addition or deletion of a property is optional, if you will.

It's it's not mandatory.

It doesn't say shall be added, it says may be added.

All right, next slide.

So on the issue of property owner consent, um, the from what we were able to tell in our research that the um language that I read earlier from the September 17th, 2025 agenda, it appears to have come from the city's website regarding the historic resources committee.

Um I can say that in our research, we found no provision in the city municipal code on whether property owner consent is or is not uh required for inclusion of their property in the historic resources inventory.

Um spoiler alert here.

Uh, as explained below, we have concluded that the city may include a property in the historic resources inventory without property owner consent.

All right, let's see how we get there.

Um, next slide.

So the law is um uh, and and this slide goes through it.

Um California law um requires owner consent for property to be listed as a state historic resource, and there's a citation there, and under federal law also requires owner consent for inclusion of the property on the national register.

However, there is no California or federal law which imposes the consent requirement on cities, nor prohibits cities from including properties on local inventories without property owner consent.

Uh next slide.

We also reviewed the case of Penn Central versus the city of New York.

Um, some of you may have heard of the Grand Central Station in New York, and that was the subject of this lawsuit.

Um, the property owner uh uh and what the the city's law um imposed on that were some development restrictions on that historic uh structure.

The property owner filed a lawsuit, alleging that the law which imposed those restrictions constituted a taking of its property.

The United States Supreme Court held uh that that, so I guess I must have really meant that.

Um it says uh local regulation of landmarks and historic districts falls within the scope of permissible government objectives, and the city's law was constitutionally valid because it provided the owners with a reasonably was it with a reasonable beneficial use of their property while fostering an important governmental purpose.

All right, next slide.

So during the course of our research on the issue of property owner consent, we did find some information with respect to how the city of Palo Alto addressed that issue.

And while there is no law that requires property owner consent for inclusion on a city's historic inventory, that would include any city.

Um, we did find that the city council in Palo Alto recently exercised uh its discretion to not include property in its historic inventory without express property owner consent.

The city decided not to designate property as historic if the property owner did not consent.

Of the 160 properties that were studied by the city of Palo Alto, there were 147 that were found to be eligible.

Uh there were several hearings before the city's historic resource board.

Um, and then the matter came to the city council.

The city council at its meeting on April 22 of 2024 voted to advance just 13 private properties due to the property owner opposition.

And I attached the staff report from the council as an attachment to the agenda report.

I will mention that when they uh say that it was due to property owner opposition, either if they oppose affirmatively opposed it or did not respond to the inquiry, that was considered to be opposition.

The only ones that were considered to be consenting were those that affirmatively said that they would agree to be added to the historic inventory.

Next slide.

So our conclusion is that property owner consent for inclusion in the city of Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory is not legally required.

However, the city may exercise its discretion in determining whether to include a property owner and uh include a property in the historic resource inventory based on lack of property owner consent.

This goes back to what I had said in my earlier comments that your code basically says that it's optional that you may add.

And uh the city of Pacific Grove, just as the city of Palo Alto could act, could not necessarily must, but could exercise its discretion considering the issue of property owner consent, but uh the lack of property owner consent would not prevent them from being added.

Uh next slide.

Questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Perry.

We'll go ahead and go to the public.

Uh see if we have any comment on this one.

Yeah, one.

I think I have one.

Ms.

Ciani.

Thank you.

Um, there's some pertinent objective and essential information in the agenda report.

However, the city attorney misrepresents municipal code section 2376030 in the last sentence of part B.

He takes the word May in the sentence about how additions and deletions are initiated, whether it's by HRC or the property owner, and applies that to applies may to the following sentence, which actually says the HRC quote shall, not may, shall determine following hearing whether or not the property should be added or deleted based on the established criteria.

And he concludes erroneously that the city does not have to include a property on the HRI based on satisfaction of the evaluation criteria.

In any case, he does establish that zoning restrictions to protect historic properties have been upheld in the courts.

The agenda report concludes with an example that favors facilitating amendment of our historic preservation ordinance to allow owner permission to be required for placing properties on Pacific Grove's historic resources inventory.

Pacific Grove does not aspire to follow Palo Alto's example.

The purpose of the historic resources inventory is to document and protect PG's historic buildings.

Our community's character is defined by its unusually large collection of existing historic buildings, both humble and ornate, in a uniquely beautiful natural setting of ocean, rocky coast, bluffs, beaches, dunes, and forests.

And another defining characteristic of PG is the people who choose to be stewards of our historic, cultural, and natural resources.

PG has demonstrated over the years how important it is to protect our history, and that is evidenced in the historic resources inventory in our general plan and in our local coastal program.

Historic buildings, those that meet specific criteria for historic significance and integrity, are not less historic if an owner comes along who doesn't want to meet the guidelines required to protect PG's history, or who thinks there's more profit in not having protective zoning restrictions when they sell.

I mean, the HRI was done by page internal drive-by.

The only thing we've done with it is deletions or to evaluate them historically to say they remain on it.

Lately, we have actually added a few.

And it's the owners who brought them forward.

Our ordinance is just perfectly fine.

No, it doesn't require the owner's consent.

However, adding it has historically been here that the owners did request to add it.

And it still has to be evaluated for the historic guidelines.

It still has to go through the evaluation process to be added.

So I think this is one just left alone.

And no, we are not Palo Alto.

I think that is clear.

Although emigrees from Palo Alto have bought second homes on my street this last year.

But other than that, no, we are not Palo Alto.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other ones?

We do not have any more online public comment.

Okay, thank you.

I'll go ahead and close with the comment.

Bring it back to the council.

I just gonna note that this is a receiving file.

Mayor, would you like me to answer some of the questions that were raised by the commenters?

Um yeah, that's fine.

I'm just gonna state really quick that this is a receiving file.

So I'm just gonna let everyone who wants to comment on it give a comment when they wish to, if they wish to.

But go ahead now.

If you have an answer to that, I did uh question about the legality, the the statement of shall and all that.

I do.

Okay.

Can we get the uh slide back up, please?

There you go.

So uh the speaker mentioned um section, no, that's not the that's the right one.

Okay.

Uh the speaker mentioned section 2376030.

So as you can see, there's two sentences here.

The first sentence says properties may be added to or deleted from the historic resource inventory, either by initiation of the committee or by submittal by the property owner.

So that's concept number one.

Concept number two is that the historic resource committee shall determine following a hearing, so it just says say shall, whether or not the property should be added.

So I read that to mean that there is no requirement for the historic resource committee to add the property to the historic inventory merely because it meets the criteria.

What they are required to do is determine whether or not it will be added.

And the point from the prior sentence, which I think when when you read codes, you need to read the entire code to understand um the significance of it.

So having done that, it's my opinion that this code section means the property may be added if it meets the criteria, and that would have to be determined by the committee.

So if it meets the criteria, they they would then decide whether or not to add it.

If it doesn't meet the criteria, then they could say, well, it doesn't meet the criteria, so we're not gonna add it.

So that's what their role is in that second sentence.

But the first sentence to me is controlling in terms of whether or not there's a requirement that merely because a property meets the evaluation criteria that it must be added to the inventory.

And it's my opinion that it does not have to.

And with regards to Palo Alto, the reason I wasn't comparing Palo Alto to Pacific Grove and in any way, other than the fact that that there was an issue that you share, which was they had an issue about property owner consent, and this issue was presented to you in September.

So when I was doing the research, I came across Palo Alto, and I just presented it because they dealt with the similar issue of what do we do about property owner consent or lack of it, and they chose to exercise their discretion to not require uh uh um those that didn't want to be included to be added against their will.

That's that was my point about Palo Alto.

Understood.

Yeah.

So I'll just thank you for the clarifications.

Um again, uh receiving file on this.

I and there's no no resolution or anything like that.

Um, my my particular position on this is I think it's fine as is.

Um, there is an important reason uh to have it be so that you can be added to an inventory to protect the stock of the historical homes.

And the I can foresee a scenario where you know the property owners don't want it on the agenda or on the HRI because they may not be able to do certain uh upgrades or whatever the case may be, if they were to leave it on there because it won't then meet the criteria.

So I think uh in this particular instance, it's important that we maintain uh that right now.

And uh we have a lot of people coming into town buying properties and things like that.

Um, and uh our our real estate's very hot, obviously.

So that's that's where I'm at with it.

But if anyone else wishes to comment, please do go ahead.

Councilmember Garfield.

Thank you.

Um, I want to speak to the Palo Alto uh methodology that they used.

And in this one, I think it's important to realize that the their historic resources board determined which uh homes and properties were of interest to put on their inventory and then reached out with considerable effort to those homeowners to and from in many cases convince them of the value of uh listing those homes.

So I think that that proactive nature uh of the course of action that they took is something we can all learn from.

Um, and I know that we all want a robust, accurate and legitimate methodology for evaluating houses and other properties.

We want to preserve the uh value of our community as a whole, and we want a systematic, reliable way of doing that.

Um, in doing further research and looking at the most recent addition to the HRI, I discovered several steps along the way that I think are pertinent to know about.

One, if a property owner wants their property to be listed, they pay for a historic um evaluation and then bring it to the HRC.

In doing so, they sign an indemnification agreement that holds the city harmless whether a property is put on or put off the inventory and any consequences thereof.

That tells me that there are consequences, and this indemnification agreement is a step that's necessary for the property owner to take.

What the description listed in the code does not describe that thoroughly.

It also does not describe what is the course of action when the staff or the HRC itself brings to it to the HRC and it property that they feel needs to be um listed.

There is no systematic step-by-step of what gets done.

And I think it would be important for all of us and going forward to define the processes to define how many of the nine different criteria are needed to put something on a list.

Um there are nine criteria.

One, four, seven, but some could be on there just because they have one stellar example, but that's not specified.

And I think it's very important that we ask the HRC and staff to codify the processes that they are using, including who pays for and who has to authorize a historic statement.

That's determining determines whether um things go forward.

So I know it's a receive and file.

I ask you for your suggestion on how we can give direction to staff to help the eight the current HRC codify their processes in a way that is makes it replicable from time to time, from property to property and committee to committee.

What do you think?

Excuse me.

Yeah, I'm happy.

Well, it might y'all.

Okay, yeah.

If anyone wants to answer that, go ahead.

Um my response would be if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Uh, we are creating an issue where there isn't one.

And uh we would suffer enormous dire consequences for changing the HRI structure to limit the uh the houses that can go on there.

I believe we would suffer as Palo Alto has begun to suffer and will continue to suffer and lose their historic inventory as Palo Alto has already starting to suffer those impacts.

So I move at this point that we receive and file the agenda report and take no further action.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Okay, motion by walking stick, second by Mario for the discussion.

I think we need to say what we do and write it down.

And I think that's that holds for here.

And if the practices are solid and they're working, write them down.

Uh encoded and correct the lack of specificity that it's exists in the current code.

It's an edit, it's not a change.

The HRC may decide that the practice they use for homeowner initiated listings is solid.

And I defer to them on that, but it's not written down anywhere.

I mean, I could argue that you know it's if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I think is a fair position on this.

And also it's it's not a priority, it may not be a priority of the council to take that up right now when we have a lot of other priorities.

As you pointed out previously in previous meetings, we would have to prioritize.

So could be a could it be a priority of the HRC and they take it from there?

Could that be something a committee does in and of themselves without us correcting?

I mean it could be anything, you know.

But I just at this point I'm I'm with Councilmember Walking Stick.

Yeah, Councilmember Paduri.

Yeah, I just wanted to mention that we do have an uh discussion.

We're discussing an agenda item where we're combining two committees, and I think we should uh evaluate uh the how those committees operate in conjunction with each other as a singular board, uh, and see if this topic comes up as part of that discussion, because I think that you have valid points.

Uh I just don't know whether uh it is right at this point in time to decide what we're doing on this when we're deciding on something else where we're merging two boards, and I think if we're adding to the mix here, it just makes it a little bit complicated.

So, my view is just uh wait and watch for how the new committee kind of like bans out before before doing anything else.

And I would I would just say to counter that that as we're putting this together, we should look for ways to make it more clear.

And I'm not saying that this means that more houses you know are removed or more houses are added.

I think writing the process down is not a it's not a stretch.

Let's write the process down so that everybody understands it.

So then every January when we get new members onto a board or commission, everybody is going off of the same playbook, because if today the board says, yes, that house should be on, and then you know, a year from now, a different uh makeup of the board says no, it should come off.

I mean, we really need to go back and look and have a firm, you know, understanding of what's going on or off.

And I don't think that this, you know, just to I think to rest assure the public.

I mean, nobody wants to see our historic resources diminish.

I mean, we love our town the way that it is, but I think also making clear of what that process is so that any homeowner can go and look at and and see what the process is to either put it on or take it off.

I don't think that's a bad thing.

So, you know, maybe to council member Padori's point, we do move forward eventually by you know the next discussion.

Um, but I think that's where we get into trouble is that when things are specifically vague, then people make you know wiggle waggle decisions.

So I just I'm always uh a fan of specificity, but it's just me.

Well, what we're looking at wait a minute.

Okay, so I think I think we got it.

We have a motion on the floor.

We're gonna just take a vote on that.

But I will say that um we this could come up in the context of the next item.

So it's probably will because it's we are formulating a new committee and it it can it has the same powers.

Maybe maybe and if not, then we'd have to take it up at a different time.

But I would I would yeah it's been taken.

So should we just take the vote?

Okay, we'll call vote, please.

Councilmember Garfield.

Oh councilmember McDonald.

Yes, Councilmember Padori.

I council member Rao.

Councilmember Walking Stick.

I Mayor Pro Ten Amelia.

Sorry, Mayor Nick, Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um, sorry.

Motion carries five one.

With Council Member Garfield dissenting.

Thank you.

Six one.

Six one.

Okay, we got it.

Six one.

I'm getting there.

Do you want to bring I can count?

Um okay.

So um we're now at 12B.

Now we are here at the merger item.

ARBHRC.

So we'll continue to talk about HRC and also now ARB.

John Biggs.

Community Development Director.

Go ahead.

Mike.

That's better.

I thought the red light was off.

Good evening, Mayor Smith.

Member members of City Council.

John Biggs with your community development department.

We're here this evening to do a check-in with the city council.

We received some direction from the city council meeting back in August on the combining of the architecture review board and the historic resources committee.

We wanted to come back to the council this evening just to make sure that we have the makeup of the committees correct based on the meeting back in August and the feedback that I think was given to staff a couple of meetings ago based on the um item that council member Garfield brought up.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So in terms of the committee membership, it would be a committee made up of seven voting members.

Two members would have experience in the construction trades, either contractors, carpenters, engineers, and so forth.

Two members would have experience in the design trades.

That would be people with uh degrees in architecture, landscape architecture, maybe mechanical engineering and um design.

One member of the the newly revised or newly made up committee would be a member appointed by the, or excuse me, nominated by the Pacific Grove of Heritage Society, appointed by the mayor, and then confirmed by the city council, and then two would be members of the community that have an interest in serving on the architecture review board.

Um these are what we took to heart in terms of what we the feedback that we receive from the city council, what the makeup of the committee should be.

We're open to other suggestions and ideas that the council might have.

And we would take that feedback from the council and wrap it into a series of not well, not a series of ordinances, but an ordinance that amends um sections of our municipal code.

And I just wanted to point out that we are not looking at diluting the uh protections provided by our zoning regulations to properties that are on the historic resources inventory or that may be added to the historic resources inventory.

Our goal is just to modify the regulations as they are right now to wrap them into one hearing body that would consider all the applications that go before the architectural review board right now and the historic resources commission.

Those include historic demolition or historic demolition applications, uh historic determinations on whether or not to add a property to the historic resource inventory, uh historic preservation permits, which are incentives to a historic property that gives someone exceptions to our municipal code that would uh tackle booth for um the property that's not on the historic inventory.

Have to go before a planning commission for a variance or a use permit.

Um it would also entail historic relocation permits, initiative historic screenings, and then of course uh the architectural review, um, design approvals that would be for properties not only on the historic resource inventory, but also for properties uh on the um uh that are not not listed on the historic resource inventory.

So it would be one committee charged with uh doing the review for all the design, all the historic preservation um efforts that are being conducted in the in the town.

Um I wanted to note that you know we've we had a meeting uh a couple of meetings ago with our planning commission.

We talked quite a bit about training and um when we move forward and after the commission committee is formed, we will be sitting down and doing a lot of training with the committee, both on process on historic preservation, on um good design architectural features and what the uh the terminology for architecture is so that they have a good background information and we'll be doing that on a one-on-one basis and maybe inviting the chair of the the newly made committee to sit down in our meetings with staff members of both myself and the staff member that is a littleways onto the that newly formed committee, just so that everyone starting off in that committee in the beginning has the same background information and can get the ground running and be effective as commissioners.

We want to give them the tools as best we can so that they can do the best job for the city that they can.

So with that, I think I will open it up to questions again.

We're just looking for feedback from the city council this evening on the makeup of the committee.

Um, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

I will go ahead and go to the public for comment on this.

This is the uh 12B merger.

Ms.

Ciani.

Thank you.

The description of proposed membership criteria for the contemplated AHRC and the responsibilities of such a commission illustrate exactly why such a combined commission doesn't make sense for Pacific Grove.

Most importantly, there's no indication of how a combined commission of this composition and with these duties would protect Pacific Grove's historic resources as the general plan goals and policies call for.

Almost every application and project listed for the proposed AHRC to consider is a historic preservation concern.

Only applications for new construction and major alterations to structures not listed on the HRI and sign permits do not require historic preservation experience or expertise.

And members with no required experience or expertise in historic preservation could be making decisions about items that need historic preservation experience.

Training isn't experience.

Only one member needs to have historic preservation experience according to these criteria, and possibly not even one could be recruited, since any historic preservation appointees on the commission would have to be addressing new construction, non-historic alteration projects, and sign permits instead of doing urgently needed historic preservation work that should be addressed.

And they would be sitting on a commission whose majority would be making decisions on historic preservation issues that they're not familiar with, or would be quickly trained in.

That does not sound motivating for members of the community interested in historic preservation to make the time commitment to serve on the combined commission.

PG's amazing collection of historic buildings along with its scenic natural beauty and wildlife are treasured by residents and visitors, visitors who bring revenue to the city.

Please don't waste time, staff time undoing our historic resources committee and revising our historic preservation ordinance when staff lacks experience and exercise expertise to draft address that.

Please approve option two and decline to move forward with the ordinance amendment process.

Thank you.

Kim.

Thank you.

Merging the historic resource committee with any other board or committee diminishes it and the work it does.

Our history is too important to merge it with other committees who are focused on different issues, not relating to whether a property is historic.

History is terribly important as we are learning now with what is happening at the federal level.

And it is one of the things that make our town a very special place that keep tourists coming to see it.

As people stop to take photos of my little historic home.

It is important to this little hometown.

Thank you.

Miss Dahmer.

Thank you.

One thing's abundantly clear is that this mayor and uh and our community development director are out to demolish the East Wing.

Hey, good for you.

It's gone.

The historic resources committee and the architectural review board meeting committee.

They're two different skill sets.

Exactly.

They deal with two different issues and many other different issues.

Exactly.

The previous speakers iterated, they have you're out to demolish our historic resources.

It is as simple as that.

This is not streamlining anything.

This is this is making an a longer meeting that and there's no way to train.

And the composition of this, the composition of this one person from the historic society, no one else requires historic background in anything.

No, hey, a construction crew.

Uh yeah, you know, uh, it this is ridiculous.

A construction company and design, there's two sets of criteria easily that of uh in building and adding on to and trying to preserve historic homes, and you're just lumping it together and saying, okay, let it all be demolished.

And I just do not understand your public comment and your letters have said over and over what a bad idea this is.

We so carefully considered it in previous years, and came up with that.

We needed our historic resources committee, and I just do not understand the mentality of what's going on here.

Seven members that only won with history.

Oh, that's a terrible makeup.

If it's not at least three and three, we've lost Pacific Grove.

Literally, thank you.

Anyone else?

Oh, we have Mr.

Teal, Mr.

Teal.

Sorry, I was muted.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Oh, great.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm not gonna repeat uh whatever speakers have mentioned, but I'd like to uh ask the city council to take option two, which is do not merge both committees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

We do not have any more online public comment.

All right, I'm gonna close public comment, bring back to the council for discussion.

Um, just to address a couple of the comments.

We're not getting enough people just as it is for the for the 10 people that we currently are trying to field, and we're also not getting the type of candidates that we have set out to try to field as well.

So that's like at the right off the outset.

So some of the comments don't apply because of that.

So let's just move to throw that out there.

But the other thing is is that what we're trying to do, I think, through our department is we're trying to create uh a more strict, we are trying to streamline things because we were told by consultants that we have way more commissions than than other communities of our size.

We were just told tonight we have huge um needs financially.

That's the other thing.

So I to me it makes a whole lot of sense to try to streamline our boards and commissions.

We don't have the same level of volunteers anymore.

I do the appointment, and then I send it to the council for approval.

We don't have enough people to to do all these things, so it's it is a sign of the times, and it it is it's different now than it was in 1995, and we're gonna work with now.

We're we're in 2025.

So um, clearly I'm supportive of this recommendation, and I really appreciate the staff's work on it.

And obviously, I'm not inflexible.

I think you know, we if we want to work on a little little things here and there, but we're you know, we're taking from um uh the the heritage society thing.

We already dealt with that at a previous meeting.

We had uh a good item that brought forth the fact that hey, this needs to go through our normal process.

So we approve that item.

Now it's been incorporated into this item.

So I mean, we're taking one thing at a time.

Um, I think if we do do this, we should look at the criteria as we just talked about on the previous item.

We should look at that criteria and and dust it off and see if we can get it on paper.

Of course, if we're gonna do this, we might as well take all of that when we do it all.

So I think those were good ideas.

Um but I'll just I'll shut up in a sec, but the same focus and the same duties are going to be performed.

We're not lowering the bar at all.

In fact, I think we're probably gonna raise the bar, to be honest.

So that's my position on it.

It's different than what I've heard previously, but I yeah, that's my position.

Uh Mayor Proto Mamilia.

I agree with you.

Um I went back on the uh uh last several minutes of HRC in uh ARB.

And uh they started at um three o'clock, which is I'm on a couple committees other than them, and they were done by 3:30, and there was only three members of the past four uh different meetings.

Only three members showed up.

So to me, this makes a uh a clear clearer picture as a one council, and he's uh the mayor already mentioned I had my notes too that we did get a the um consultant saying too many boards of commissions for the city of our size, but this is a um cost-saving measure.

I think in regards to not cost saving measures, but uh by combining this, it's gonna make uh it more efficiently.

And the only thing I would just gonna ask add um was uh let's let's try it for a year.

Once this committee's formed, let's try it for a year and see how it goes.

Uh that's my thoughts.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Garfield, you're gonna catch you next.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um I I wanted to just propose a some wordsmithing on the two members that are in construction and two in design trades.

You've said that all of these should be residents, but the um HRC does not require all of the uh appoint appointees to be residents.

So I'm wondering if we might get better uh pool if the construction and design trades, uh, one of each could live outside but do work in Pacific Grove.

Um, so that we'd have a familiar with the community, but it would give us a larger pool of people uh to draw from.

So my proposal is to just say is it two are in construction and two in design trades, one of each could be non-resident, but uh familiar with working in Pacific Grove.

Um that gives us one, two, three, five people that are residents and two that might not be.

Um, and and improves the if you if you add in that with construction and design trades, are um uh I wouldn't use the word required, but are expected to have experience with historic work.

Um that that that adds some emphasis within those those folks there.

Um and I would go and I truly appreciate what you said about training, because I think training gets everybody consistent and replicable and um defensible.

Uh we are giving this committee and all of these committees a legal process for permitting uh for the city.

They are our agents, and we need them to be real responsible and the best they can be.

So training them is the least we can do uh for that.

But in that point, I want to ask you, going back to the previous thing about encoding current practices.

Do you think it would be better to encode what we're currently doing or use this committee to design a process that you think works even better?

I would not recommend putting it in the code.

I would recommend making sure that we have a clearly laid out process that's available for staff, the public, members of the committee, and applicants.

That would be thank you.

By encoding, I just meant right down that I hear what you're saying, is not put into the code, but but have a process that's noted.

Yes, and and accounts for uh the various different scenarios that we run into when we're looking at applications.

So thank you.

I think that's a good one.

And then um, you also said that this this combined AHRC would do initial historic screenings.

Um is who would do that?

And so right now the Historic Resources Commission, let's say we have a project that we let's say at the staff level notices that there's something about the property.

Maybe it was designed by a famous architect or maybe somebody famous lived there, but it's not on the HRI.

We would go to the HRC right now and ask them if they would like to initiate the process to have it included on that HRI.

If they were to agree, then we would go through the process to become formal recommendation to the HRC to have them add it to the HRI.

Uh the only problem with that is that that introduces right there there's several steps in that process.

First initiation of the process to get it included, then having it go back to the HRI or HRC for the formal inclusion of the property on the HRI, and then coming back potentially for either a design permit or a um historic preservation permit for that project.

So that's that's where if we had a combined committee, you would have a committee being able to um possibly take all those actions at one meeting where right now we're not sure what the HRC will do in those particular cases.

So they might go to HRC be told no, we don't want it on the HR HRI go back to the architecture review board for what you want to do.

So that's where we're trying to uh clear up in the process.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Councilman Rao.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Biggs.

Does this change the code at all with allowing people to just demo because they want to?

I mean, can somebody just do that?

No, we we have uh a prohibition against the demolition of properties on the HRI.

So we're not saying that this is going to change the code and allow you know houses to be altered outside of the current process.

The the same standards that we have in place right now for historic properties, we would look to incorporating into the updated codes.

Thank you for the clarification.

Um as you look at these, someone may say, why do why does an architect or a can a contractor or other trades need two of each?

And what has happened often in both the ARB and the HRC is that unfortunately uh one or two people have to recuse because they are the architect on the project, they're the contractor on the project, they were the kitchen designer on the project.

And so when you when you look at this, um I think it's why we need seven people instead of five.

I understand, you know, unfortunately, the volunteer folks that have done this in the past, um, you know, are being, you know, they're aging out a little bit, they're deciding to move on and do other things.

And so, you know, I think we need to do a better job of recruiting folks.

And at the same time, I think that um in order to make uh you know, in order to make arrangements for the amount of recusals that we have, uh, I think it's important that we that we um make sure that there's seven and that there's multiple uh multiple people in the trades assigned because of the the amount of recusals that we have.

So those are my two thoughts.

Excellent.

Um, uh going back to the document and process for inclusion in the HRC, just the um uh the city of Pacific Grove.

Uh yeah, there you go.

How's that?

Okay, I'll start over.

Okay, documenting documentation on process, the city of Pacific Grove does have a guidelines for historic assessments.

Um that uh uh uh uh provides both the uh the process, uh the procedure and the exclusions possible.

Uh that is found on the historical historical resources, uh excuse me, historic resources city page.

Um so we've got the the process itself documented um for both the city and the uh uh whoever is doing the evaluation regarding putting the two groups together.

Um I agree that we do need to uh uh streamline.

We do need to uh uh uh improve our overhead.

Um I'm still not certain that this is a a good way to go.

We have two very important but different roles that these two uh commissions play, two different skill sets.

Um and I know that the evaluation of historic um uh buildings is is labor intensive.

You're looking at 40 hours plus to do an evaluate, sometimes to do an evaluation on a property for its historical value.

Um I don't know that I want to put everybody on the ARB in in that seat, you know, um, especially if it's if it's not their their wheelhouse, right?

So I I agree in principle, but in the execution of putting together these two particular boards, um, I I don't think this is our our way to go.

Uh I am sensitive to the fact that we're having trouble staffing these boards.

Um if we were to look at ways of expanding inclusion into making making uh uh qualifications more inclusive so that we can expand our our potential candidates, that would be fantastic.

Um I am not uh opposed to Cynthia's idea of uh taking away a um uh a qualifier of you have to be a PG resident.

I think there can be qualified individuals outside of our area.

I prefer locals.

I think we've established that, but um, but as the mayor pointed out, we are having a problem with staffing, and that's a major issue.

And that's the one thing that would drive me towards uh uh accepting this this merger.

Um it does make it tempting, but at the end of the day, they both have very important roles in our community.

They both serve vital functions, and they're both very different skill sets.

And because of that, uh I don't think I want to merge these two.

And again, it was uh tempting have an idea of let's try it out for a year and see how it works out.

Um, but I'd rather fix the problem now than wait a year.

So uh I I think a a better approach for us would be to try and find a way to attract more qualified people to staff those uh rather than doing away with them.

And uh I'm like I said, I'm still down for removing some boards for for uh reducing our overhead for uh boards and commissions.

I I just don't think this particular move is it.

Thank you.

Uh chaps, or council member.

Thank you, Bob.

I I'm recognize you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh um so I I think I've already provided my views on the topic.

So I'm I'm good with the merger.

That's a number one.

Uh, number two is uh I I just to council member Garfield's point.

Uh I I wasn't of the impression that the ARB also was the same because I was on the ARB and it had some somewhat similar things where not everybody in PG was an architect necessarily.

So we had to like step out of our like kind of kind of area to look at architects.

So maybe we can just broaden that Pacific Grove or at least like relax it a little bit on Pacific Grove residency required, especially when it comes to specific professions.

Uh that's where I but I actually am on the and I like council member walking stick is saying that we'll have to find more for more people for this.

And on that note, my question to you is even after all this is said and done, if we do not have people or these seven positions, what is the strategy here?

Like can we still move forward as a quorum?

Can we uh any thoughts there?

Just certainly so long as we have um it was a seven-member commission, as long as we had four members that showed up during a meeting, we could hold a meeting, and then we could consider projects so long as at least all four of those members were able to act on those projects, and none of them had to step down because of some conflict of interest.

It gets a little uh challenging if one of those members has to step down.

You only have three that can act on the project.

Um, I don't even think this concept of drawing straws where you know the remaining three get to act because I think you need a full board for that to work legitimately.

So it could be problematic in the future.

There could be people that won't be able to have their project considered because you don't have the the membership needed to move that project forward.

And it would only the the solution would be an appointment to of a member to that commission to make sure that there's another body to hear the project and provide the quorum on an application.

Yeah, and on that note, uh, even when you're talking about quorum and etc.

I think it'll be very prudent of us to be explicit on what constitutes a quorum and which of these like recognized bodies is part of the quorum.

So if there's no architect, for instance, is that a quorum or not?

Um I just want to make sure that we're explicit there because this will be the first thing that everybody does when they sit on the dais.

Uh so if you can just make that uh noted, uh but otherwise, I'm I I think I'm generally supportive of this.

Uh I want to see how this goes.

Uh I and I think we will need to do a better job on recruiting, not only for this uh AHRC, but for all the boards and commissions.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I do understand why we're discussing this exercise.

So I I understand the challenges we're facing.

Um, but I'm particularly concerned about the proposed composition of the commission, specifically in this agenda report.

But to me, it's sort of a little bit bigger of an issue.

And I understand it's because we're only bringing forward the composition right now, but we are bringing it forward with little assurance of historic expertise or representation on the new commission.

Um, and so we've been told that we will, as the state laws change, have less discretion in the architectural review aspect.

So it seems like this almost, although we say we're not diminishing the historic, because there's nothing stating that they have historic background, it could happen whether we, the current people expect it to or not, unless we have that in writing, that that is protected by requiring historic expertise in one place it says expertise from the the design and the architectural people, um, others they say interest or knowledge for the HRC.

So it's very clear from public comment and just from history and PG that maintaining our historic or preserving our historic nature is important.

We've we've just been voted by HGTV as one of the best little towns, and part of that is indeed because of our unique historic nature as well as our natural resources, and so a lot of the people choose to live here and visit here specifically for that.

So I think it is critically important for us to ensure that we are protecting that, but but more importantly, we're kind of talking about the composition, and I feel like that's putting the the cart ahead of the horse because until you look at the mission, the goals, the purpose of the committees, and in particular because here people are concerned about the loss of the historic aspects.

Um, it's hard to determine whether we're meeting that need in the proposed combined commission.

So looking at municipal code chapter 23.76 regarding historic preservation, there's a very clear purpose there in protecting our cultural um heritage, um, both the aesthetic benefit to the community.

So they list things like preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Pacific Grove, enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city might maintain the existing scale and the eclectic styles of buildings and their settings, preserve the diverse qualities that define the character of the community.

But here's an interesting thing towards the end, enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the city and protect and enhance the city's attraction to tourists and visitors, thereby stimulating business.

So when this was written, it was very clear in our own municipal code how important the historic value is to our community, and we're hearing from the residents that that is still very much the case.

So I feel like it's critical for us as council to represent the needs and desires of our community and to honor our municipal code as we proceed with this.

And even more important in my mind is if you look at so further in that chapter, is 23.76.021 historic resources committee.

And it specifically speaks to the current combination of people on the HRC, and it says it shall consist of five members having a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and the cultural resources of Pacific Grove.

Um at least four had to be residents, so there already was some accommodation for the fact that they may not all be residents, and that one should be a licensed architect with preservation experience, landscape architect, engineer, or architectural historian, or be a licensed general contractor with preservation experience, and one shall be a representative of the heritage society.

So the point being here that it was very clear in our municipal code that that historic context had to be front and center.

And so with what's proposed here, there's nothing stating other than one person selected by the historical society that um I'm probably saying that wrong, the heritage society, that um the um they they potentially could be the only person with any historic interest and knowledge.

So it's in the language of how we're writing this, and we open the door for that not being included.

And I completely understand they will still uphold these rules, but by weakening the people that you're putting on the board from having that experience and that expertise, that puts us at risk for first of all making them harder, making it harder for them to do that job because they wouldn't have the interest, the knowledge or expertise potentially.

So we have to be very careful, I think, in how we word this and how we form the body.

I personally can see both the benefit of combining so that we can have a more steam streamlined process in that currently.

And so combining them together would still allow more time for appeals to be um sure that the full process is done without it being basically approved without completion of that process.

So I understand the potential benefits of combining them, but I'm not okay with the potential loss of the knowledge and experience as it's currently proposed.

Um so I think keeping that preservation experience or demonstrated interest and knowledge in preservation and the cultural resources of Pacific Grove is absolutely critical in defining who the board should be if we're going to have this subcombined committee.

So I'm just kind of I I wrote a lot of notes, but I'm not gonna read them all.

But um so I think that um if council decides they're going to proceed with this, we really I feel need to beef up the historical nature because if we don't, we're really ignoring what our community values, and and I think we have to show in what we write down that we are maintaining what's important per our code and per our residents.

And um, if council were to proceed.

What I would recommend, so the the focus keeps being on architectural, architectural, and we said AHRC, if council decides to proceed with this, I would actually suggest calling it HARC Park, the Historic and Architectural Resources Committee.

So the historical part stays front and center because this is critically important to our community, and I I think we need to do everything we can to protect that.

Okay, understood.

So I'm I'm just gonna summarize here.

I've got general consensus to move forward with this.

Um two objections essentially.

Um, and I will just speaking to a part part of the objections.

I think I can't we can't guarantee the the we're gonna get the volunteers that have that exact experience.

So I think by putting that in there, we're gonna limit the amount of people that are gonna apply for this that might be great members of the board if trained well, as we heard earlier, um, could be great.

So I I don't I don't, I'm not thinking that's a great idea.

I think that um the way that they laid it out on here and I would recommend we move forward with the motion to move forward on this.

I would recommend that we say five members or seven members, five of which would be residents of Pacific Grove, two of which may be residents of other communities.

Um we go with the one one of one from the construction trade being from out of town, one from the construction trade or the building design trade being from out of town being okay, because those people do work in our community quite a bit, and they don't necessarily live, they're not necessarily one of the 15,000 residents of PG.

Um obviously stick with the heritage uh person and the last one.

There's two residents of Pacific Grove interested in serving less as I said.

I mean, you could potentially add one that has preservation experience, but then we might only have six members of the commission next year that apply or that we end up with because we couldn't feel the entire uh well and the people that are on there now may not meet that criteria, then they would roll off or be taken off the board.

So I don't I'm I just don't see that right now.

Right now I see moving forward with it as it's kind of been uh suggested by staff with those modifications that I listed.

If someone wants to make that motion and then um I'll hear you in a minute, but and then uh make that motion.

And I would also maybe even add in uh the review of the uh criteria for conclusion on the HRC and on an exploration of that when you come back.

Is anyone want to make that motion?

May we ask Mr.

Biggs what he's written down so it's captured so we know what he's gonna go forward with if we vote.

Oh, sure.

If you if he's right, are you writing it down?

Yeah, I'm trying to um mayor.

Based on what you just said, it looks like you would like to move along with staff's recommendations subject to uh one member each from the construction and the design category uh would allow them to be from out of Pacific Grove.

Yes.

And then uh also include an exploration of the um the process for uh including a property on the HRI.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Good.

I think it would be helpful to have language that um underscores an emphasis on the historic preservation and um our commitment to it.

Uh perhaps in each of the categories uh of the constituents on the committee um stating how important it is that they have not just interest but knowledge of and experience with is preferred.

I mean, we can we can say something's preferred without requiring it, but that at every stage along the way, the language we put in there um underscores the importance of the historic um preservation and honoring our our the value of our community.

Um there's plenty of languages we've all quoted around here.

So roll some of that in.

Um and I I did want to point out that of the things that this committee is going to be responsible for, five of them are historic and one of them is just architectural.

So it's really in some ways we're rolling the architectural review board into the historic resources committee, not the other way around.

That's a very good point and clarification.

Um the Mayor Pretonamili is gonna make, I think he's gonna make the motion.

I'm gonna attempt you don't have you can just say I think we got it reported.

Uh actually no, but he's making the make the motion, and then we could this would have to do with that.

Yeah, you get it on discussion.

Uh I'm uh I'm gonna make a motion.

Uh and I'm gonna I I said earlier about a year I didn't hear any comments about that.

So except one, uh I'm going with the motion as review and provide direction to the city manager, Mr.

Morgenson.

I'm sure you kind of caught the glimpse of uh what was going on with the to return with the appropriate ordinance uh amendments combining the architectural review board and historic resources commission and start the public review process leading to a recommendation of the by to the uh planning commission and consideration by the city council.

Um I'm just gonna ask this uh Joe.

I think or Commander Party might are you okay with the what I stated to be the modifications to the recommendation?

Yes.

That's basically the motion what it would be.

Yeah, and including the recommendations of who the makeup of the uh committee which you could uh suggested, the mayor suggested.

Okay, do we I think we got everything recorded?

I mean, we've done this three times already.

Are we good?

If we need a second, I think the most important person in the room is Stephanie.

Um, because she's taking all this down and needs to go into the minutes.

Okay.

So perhaps we can ask her um if you track this.

I I suppose you know she could always review the video if that was needed.

Well, so including the make of right, five members, five members of Pacific Grove as a resident, two out of side of Pacific Grove residents with one construction outside of Pacific Grove, and then one building outside of Pacific Grove as well, too.

So five to make up.

And then we also had the um explorate.

We're gonna explore the we're gonna further elucidate the concept on the uh criteria for the HRI.

They know what was the last one, Joe?

And then was also request that we include um supporting information regarding the importance of historic preservation for all the board and committee members.

Great.

And is that your motion?

Yeah, okay.

We got the motion by Milo.

Do I have a second?

We have a second by Garfield discussion by council member walking stick.

Okay.

Discussion.

I was going to make a friendly amendment about the language.

Um, and and it may not be appropriate for this item, so you can tell me if it is or not, because I know this is about the makeup, but I had proposed the possibility of as part of that redefining it, the historic and architectural resources commission.

So that might be something for a later date because I know this item is specifically about the makeup, but um throwing that in there in case that friendly amendment would apply.

And so ask the maker of the motion.

Do you accept the amendment of reversing the title?

Uh what title was it?

Instead of AHRCHARC, so historic and architectural resources commission.

Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Is the second are okay with that?

We're not done with all the issues.

Yeah, good than bad.

But for now, do we want to you're okay with the pronouncement?

Okay, yeah.

That's that's the direction right now.

Mr.

Mary, yeah, I just gotta make sure it starts next steps.

Everybody's on the same page.

Um, in the right in the motion, it basically is saying that we're gonna go work on the ordinance at this point and then start the process at the planning commission before it comes back to you.

I just want to make sure that that's what your understanding is.

Well, that we're now developing ordinances proposing into the planning.

Yeah, we don't want to bring this back without doing work doing going forward on this.

Okay, it's already the third time here.

Okay.

So we'll take a roll call vote, I think.

Yes.

Councilmember Garfield.

Aye.

Okay.

Councilmember McDonnell.

Councilmember Padori.

Councilmember Rao.

Councilmember Walkingstick.

Nope.

Mayor Pro Temilio.

Aye.

Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Motion carries five, two with council members McDonald and Walkingstake dissenting.

Okay, thank you very much.

And thank you for the discussion, everybody.

I think we have a one presentation tonight.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Yes, Ms.

Mayor.

We have a presentation on our flock system.

Okay.

Uh Commander Anderson is going to lead us in that.

Okay, we'll go ahead and take that before we go to closed session and take we're gonna take a break before closed session.

Good evening, uh honorable mayor and council members.

This is a brief update on the department flock safety program.

Uh the city of Pacific Grove entered into a contract with Flock Safety, uh, approved by the city council in March of 2023 to enhance the community safety through technology-based solution.

Uh flock works.

It is uh a public safety tool that captures vehicle license plate data and other limited information to support law enforcement investigations.

It does not use facial recognition or capture personal identifying information.

The system helps identify vehicles connected to criminal activity or community safety concerns.

The Pacific Grove Police Department uses the flock data strictly to enforce laws, investigate crime, and improve response times.

All system access requires a valid reason.

It is policy-driven, logged, and audit audit, excuse me, audited every 30 days for accountability and transparency.

Prohibited uses include immigration enforcement, traffic enforcement, harassment, or intimidation use basically slow solely on protected classes, and personal use.

In regards to sharing, data is shared only with approved local law enforcement partners within our jurisdictional area of responsibility, as determined by the chief of police.

Data is not shared with immigration enforcement or federal law enforcement, nor with any other unauthorized entities.

Current organizations granted access are California Highway Patrol, California State Parks, Capitola PD, Carmel PD, Marina PD, Monterey PD, Monterey County SO, Monterey County District Attorney's Office, Salinas PD, San City PD, Santa Cruz PD, C Side PD, and Watsonville PD.

To date, according to Flock representatives, Flock has not been served with a search warrant by uh federal law enforcement agency for its data.

Why we share uh crime does not stop at city borders.

Sharing information with nearby agency helps track suspects and vehicles involved in regional crimes.

Flock's regional network allows us to collaborate efficiently while maintaining data integrity.

And um open to any questions.

Thank you very much.

We're gonna have some public comment on this item, so we'll go ahead and take that now.

I got iPhone user two.

Good evening, uh, mayor and counselor and city staff.

It's Debbie Beck.

I'm speaking tonight in strong support of retaining flock cameras and even considering adding more.

Over the past few years, we've seen situations not only here in Pacific Grove, but in our surrounding communities where flock cameras have been absolutely instrumental in solving serious crime.

When I previously sat on city council, I shared a story of an elderly woman in Carmel near Ocean Avenue who had been brutally attacked in the early morning hours while standing in front of our home.

If it wasn't for flock cameras, that suspect may have never been caught.

Investigators were able to identify his vehicle entering and leaving town, and that's what led to his arrest.

There was also a multiple fatality shooting in King City at an outdoor event.

Through the flock system, authorities learned that the vehicle involved had actually been stolen right here in Pacific Grove.

We were not informed of this.

It came through the media.

I was shocked to learn that it had been stolen out of Pacific Grove.

I don't ever want to imagine being the person walking with a child and someone grabs that child, and all I can do is describe the car.

Without flock cameras, that would be our reality.

This is not about targeting innocent people.

This is not about overstepping anyone's privacy.

This is about safety, plain and simple.

I live in this community, we pay taxes here, and I wholeheartedly support using those tax dollars to invest in safety, whether it's through our police department, our fire department, or our newly formed paramedic team.

If we want to continue living in a community that feels safe, that is safe, then keeping the flock cameras is not just a good idea.

It's a priority for our community.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Helene Ingram.

Yes, thank you.

Um, thank you for bringing this to the council.

Um, I remember when Flock first came in, and I also remember when former council member Beck uh had an alarmist narrative to um promote it.

And I understand the uh comments that were made, the commentary made from uh the police department, who I do respect, but that was before we have the administration we have right now.

I support public safety and I respect our police department.

My concern is not our local intent, it's the reality of the access to our automated license plate reader data that can expand beyond Monterey County partners without our knowledge through partner platforms or shifting policies.

Assurances alone aren't enough, and we we know how surveillance can be misused.

The recent partnership of Amazon Ring has also made with Flock, will have an have to be addressed with residents who use it.

But I'm asking that we be proactive when it comes to city flock contract and usage.

We're watching federal and cross-agency access happen elsewhere.

Researchers found local agencies enabling federal immigration searches and tagging queries for homeland security investigations inside APLR systems.

That's exactly the kind of indirect pathway we don't want touching Pacific Grove data.

It's not theoretical.

Texas police have used nationwide flock network to track a woman who self-managed an abortion.

This is a civil liberties issue affecting real people right now.

And it was a concern before this went into place that there was a potential for this to be misused.

We know that there is.

That's why guardrails matter, especially for protesters, journalists, and marginalized communities.

Also, if you look at the FLOC um website, our local agency can extend the 30-day retention to this information.

Well, so can a public agency that was democratically appointed or um elected.

So there could be an override, and I want to as a resident be assured that our our current administration cannot override the barrel guardrails and boundaries that we put on this data in our county.

This isn't anti-law enforcement.

It's pro-accountability, pro-transparency and pro-trust.

I hope that you listen to this.

Thank you.

Any further?

We do not have any further online public comment.

Okay.

Any comments?

Can we ask a question?

Absolutely.

Thank you for that, Commander.

Um, what is the process today for sharing information?

Say hypothetically that ICE wanted our data, what would be the process that they would use to get that data?

Uh they would put a request into us and it would be denied.

And so anything, so you're saying that anything uh it would require a subpoena from signed from a judge that would facilitate us giving them our information, is that correct?

Uh they could go that route and get a court order uh for the information, but more than likely that would be served directly with Flock.

And um if all of those other agencies that you listed have access to our data, if they were to be served, or if an ICE agent went into King City and said, can I see Pacific Rose data?

What would stop them from doing that?

Uh there's an agreement that's in place with the cities that we share with that it is not um shared with uh immigration.

It's strictly prohibited even on the flock website uh to share with immigration services.

Is there any way that these flock cameras can be used with facial recognition?

Uh not that I'm aware of.

It's one of the prohibited uh uses for the flock cameras.

Okay.

So there's no no mechanism or that would be an enhanced news camera specifically designed to capture license plates.

Okay.

Um I think that answered my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for the questions or appreciate those clarifications from you guys from the the department.

I appreciate that.

Uh Councilmember Dury.

Thank you.

Uh I I did want to follow up on a couple too.

Um, thank you for sharing this information.

Uh safety is obviously paramount, so you totally get it.

Um data retention part, is that like a standard data retention that we have uh with Flock or or is there like a like a policy that we need to institute to say it needs to be a certain set of days?

Uh so the standard uh is 30 days.

So Flock doesn't retain anything past 30 days.

Uh and that's the uh the agreement in the con currently what we have in the contract with Flock, and that's just been their standard throughout nation.

Okay.

Um as a council can uh vote to extend that or change that uh standard.

Okay, and it's a technically we can if we want say data can be retained only for 14 days.

If we I'm just hypothetical, we can say that and that can be instituted.

Uh yes, to my knowledge.

Okay, thank you.

Uh similarly, like uh just you mentioned like data sharing with other kind of like seemed like within the county.

Is that true or is that broader than pretty much along the uh coast?

The Monterey Bay, and then a couple of our larger cities that are just inland from us.

Okay.

Do we um and this is just me thinking more broadly here?

I know like a lot of uh technology, right?

Like just changes over time, but our technology is now reliant on AI.

And I know when when it comes to data sharing agreements, uh, what is exactly happening with that data and any kind of AI tool that any other organization may have that can again lead to other consequences.

And I was just wondering if within the flock system with our agreement, but with we have a flock.

Uh that's something I would have to research and get back to you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, I think this is uh this is coming timely.

I know we're seeing a lot of news.

So I think it's uh it's a good discussion to have.

And I just wanted to also mention that we do have more broadly within the city.

We have we at least have an AI related item that we've asked the staff to look into.

Perhaps they can this both of these can be like looked into at the same time.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Mayor.

Um approximately uh three years ago when uh Chief Matalone was on uh the that they had started the flock system.

But I was at a conference and I spoke to the flock people that were at this conference, and they knew right away what was going to be happening in PG.

And one of the things I always look at is I think it's important to look at mutual aid.

That maybe somebody uh had an arm robbery, let's say in Carmel, then maybe the city, the car is coming through our town.

We should know that, you know.

And uh I the flock people that I spoke to was very right on with you, Commander Anderson, which you just reported.

Councilman Garfield.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, I think we've heard two people speaking about the importance of our citizens feeling safe from two different perspectives.

Um and I think we want all of the citizens in our community to feel safe.

So I I respect what Flock is doing to give us continuity to give us insight to give us tools.

But I also would like to ask you to keep an eye on misuses that you might be hearing about.

Um it's a pretty turbulent world right now.

And I truly don't trust what they might be doing in Texas with Flock.

I'd like to know that you got an eye on it.

Uh yes, and as I mentioned in my presentation, uh, we audit it every 30 days.

Just keep your ears open.

I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close out the presentation.

Thank you guys for coming in and giving us that.

Um and that concludes the open session item item fifteen a closed session.

I'm gonna have a we're gonna take a ten minute break and then we'll take that up starting down here and take the public comment.

We're gonna take a 10 minute break right now.

Thank you.

Recording stopped.

I'm not doing it right now.

We do.

Recording in progress.

CPG zoom is mute.

Is that okay?

Oh.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, okay, here we are.

We're back for our final item for item fifteen A of our agenda tonight.

It's closed session.

We're gonna be going back into closed session.

I'll ask the city attorney to read the closed session item for us.

Yes, I'll do that.

Uh it is a conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation.

Uh significant exposure litigation is authorized by government code section five four nine five six point nine D two.

The number of cases is one.

Um, and now I'll open it up for public comment on the closed session item.

We do not have any online public comment.

Okay.

Um there's no in the chamber's wishing.

We're gonna go ahead and take it adjourned to closed session.

And we will report out of the next meeting, right?

Is that correct?

Oh, that's right.

Okay, got it.

Thank you very much.

We're going to closed session now.

Upstairs.