Good evening, everyone.

It is May 6, 2026, 6 02 p.m.

This is a regular meeting of the Pacific Grove City Council.

You're here with us at City Hall 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California, and Council Chambers.

I'm calling the meeting to order tonight.

We have five council members present.

Uh Councilmember Emilio and Councilmember is well, Emilio is not present.

We're down to five tonight.

Please join me.

Thank you very much, everyone.

And uh we'll go on to item one approval of the agenda.

Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as stated?

So tie will um Councilmember Rao, second by Councilmember Paduri.

Um, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, passes unanimously with proceed uh stated in the agenda.

Um, let's go ahead and skip down to council and staff announcements, and I will uh recognize the city attorney for any closed session announcements.

No announcements, okay.

Um, and Mr.

Moganson, do you have any staff announcements tonight?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

We do have a couple.

First, I just wanted to thank everybody who showed up for our push-in ceremony.

That was a great event to see the new fire truck get pushed into the bay and is now in service.

So we're good for 20 years.

I think it's probably um also, of course.

I want to and I want I'm sure this will be echoed, but you know, thanks to our police officers and our public works people who spent the whole weekend making good old days happen.

Yeah, that was um, you know, we know that that's a that's a lot, but um it was a well-attended, very well celebrated event.

So thank you for that.

Um, additional thing, then I I'd like to pass it over to uh George first so he can announce a little bit about Arbor Day stuff.

Mayor Smith, Council members.

I just want to thank everybody that turned out for our tree planting event to celebrate Arbor Day on April 19th.

We planted 2027 mid-sized cypress trees at Esplanade Park.

I think everybody had a good time and learned a little bit about trees and tree planting from our urban forester John Kenny.

And we're also celebrating our 25th year of recognition as a tree city through the Arbor Day Foundation.

And then this year, thanks to the work of John Kenny, we we also received the growth award, which recognizes cities that go on above and beyond the four core tenants of the tree city um award.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any further city staff announcements?

I will now recognize my colleagues up here.

Any council announcements today?

Um, seeing none, I'll just go ahead and say thank you to staff for good old days for another eventful and entertaining good old days.

And uh, you know, we always love it every year, and it's a great time.

So thank you so much.

And uh we'll now move on to item four general public comment.

This is uh deals with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the council that are not on the regular agenda.

I see one hand went up.

Um, anyone in chambers wish please I'll take chambers first, come on up and give your public comment.

I'm gonna thank again.

Um I'm Christy Metzner, Pacific Grove, Chamber President and CEO, and we did have a wonderful good old days weekend, weather cooperated.

Crowds came out in full force.

Um we had over 40 bands and shows, over 210 vendors, carnival rides, beer gardens.

It was so fun.

I didn't want it to end.

My team thought otherwise.

Um I enjoyed every time, but we cannot do it without our city staff and the whole team.

And I have some special thank yous tonight.

Um one is our public works, and they are just amazing.

We have the best.

And Martin Gonzalez and Austin Hertall were kind of the leads and the rest of their team that was there.

Um, anything we needed.

I rang their phone, they answered immediately.

Um, everything went on really smooth.

Pacific Grove Police.

Commander Don Delfino.

Um, she is awesome at leading the whole team.

We had Sergeant Orlando Perez.

Um, they brought in CERT and the community emergency response team to help shut it down on Sunday, and they stood at all the streets and kept everything smooth.

We had all the roads open by 6 p.m.

And then we had our Monterey Fire.

I don't know if I remember fire hanging around the whole time off and on there.

And that was division chief Justin Cooper.

We wrote around the golf cart, checked vendors all the time, and fire marshal David Jones.

And then we had our Monterey Firefighter Community Foundation that did the kids' firefighter challenge.

And then our council, thank you for always supporting us and all of our events.

We appreciate you.

Have a good night.

Thank you very much.

Another person in chambers coming forward.

Okay.

About cost of elections here in PG.

I'm sure everyone has heard the assertion or claim that the cost of adding a ballot initiative to a general election is negligible.

And that's always kind of created some doubt in my mind.

And I went over to Monterey County elections to learn more about it.

Their definition of negligible, by the way, and they have said that is that anything that comes in under the top end of their estimated range is clearly a negligible increment over any other version of the same item.

And the range is six to ten dollars per voter, that's 40,000 for Pacific Growth.

So that's a pretty broad number, and where the threshold is is negligible, is hard to tell.

We then looked at the cost for the November general election of 2024.

And it was very interesting because the amount and on the chart that was charged to the city was $58,000.

And then down in the super fine print at the bottom, that's what was presented to me.

There's an item for the VIG, which is the voter information guide.

That's $28,000 of the total charge.

Now the question I asked was of the four items we had on that election, how much did each contribute to what we were billed?

And there was silence in the room.

I think they don't get that question very often.

But what eventually came out is somebody said, Oh, let me give you the page count in the guide.

And page count was mayor two, council, four, measure Q, 14 pages, Measure Z, 21 pages, 35 out of 41 pages, 85% of the voter information guide was devoted to our ballot measures, and that's $24,000 out of the $28,000.

It's 41% of the cost of the total election.

So I don't know where your personal threshold might be on what's negligible and what is significant.

That is well into significant in my book.

But as we move into uh situations where we're looking at putting things on the uh measures on a ballot, uh, we ought to be aware of uh a realistic estimate of the impact on costs of the city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, we'll go ahead and go on to the online callers.

Any of any who are on.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, let me stop sharing my screen here.

Uh telephone member ending in 902.

You have the floor.

Good evening.

My name is Nina Beattie.

International events are impacting Pacific Grove that the city cannot ignore.

On May 1st, UN investigative journalist Richard Medhurst reported that the goal of the U.S.

attacks on Iran and the kidnapping of President Maduro is to create the petrol gas dollar and make the U.S.

the sole source of gas and oil for the world, including Europe and Asia.

The U.S.

has done this by the Navy's blockade of oil and gas from other countries in the Arctic, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, and the capture and sinking of oil tankers, as well as the destruction of Levantine ports and U.S.

enabled destruction of oil and gas infrastructure of other countries.

Why is this important?

The price of gasoline is escalating, but what happens when there's no gasoline at the gas station?

Asked Scott Ritter, geopolitical expert and former UN weapons inspector.

What happens when there's no aviation fuel?

Spirit is out of business.

Thousands of flights have been canceled.

The Monterey Airport expansion may end up being a waste of public money.

PG and its businesses don't have the luxury to ignore this.

When people can't get to their jobs, when visitors don't or can't come to the Monterey Peninsula and the hotels, and the TOT tax is zero, when Salinas Valley A can't grow crops because they don't have fertilizer.

When food can't be shipped to stores and restaurants, remember the U.S.

Navy and the Pentagon did this, and local, state, and federal officials supported this.

Yet the Navy and the Pentagon continue taking the public's money, the Pacific Grove communities' money for their endless wars.

The Pentagon has also put this community at direct risk for attack.

Other countries will take action against the U.S.

government and military to stop this piracy and the crimes against their nations, including the grooming and arming of seditionists in their countries through the Defense Language Institute training.

The military missions and facilities pose an unacceptable security risk to all of this, to all of us.

Don't put this community at terrible risk by supporting their continued presence here.

As Mother's Day approaches, a new study found 1,800 babies have died in Cuba since 2017 due to sanctions by and blockade by the Navy.

Please take action to stop this action internationally.

Thank you.

No further hands, Mayor.

Thank you.

Go ahead and close general public.

I'm bringing back to the council.

Now onto the consent agenda dealing with uh routine non-controversial matters.

Um do I have any council members that wish to pull an item from consent?

Okay.

And do we have anyone in the public wishing to pull an item from consent?

And that'd be online, Mayor.

Okay.

So we'll go ahead and uh all entertain a motion to approve consent.

Okay, we got a motion by Raoul, second by Garfield, further discussion.

Seeing none, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Passes unanimously, thank you very much.

Um move on to the regular agenda.

We're now on item 11, public hearings.

We have a public hearing scheduled for tonight, 11A.

Appeal of the planning commission's approval of coastal development permit 260-0 or sorry, 26-001.

And that I will recognize uh our uh chief of planning.

Thank you very much, Mayor Smith.

We have on the line Joe Cedor, who is our consulting planner.

He has been uh prepared the agenda report for this appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the uh coastal development permit for the Crespy Pond Management Plan, and I will let Joe begin his his presentation as soon as I can get the um PowerPoint up on the screen for him.

One second, where did it go?

Joe takes it away.

Okay, thank you.

Um, good evening, honorable mayor smith and council members.

Item agenda item 11A involves an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on March 12th, 2026 to approve a coastal development permit for the management of vegetation within Crespy Pond, including the adoption of an initial study mitigated negative declaration and the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan.

Next slide.

The proposed project consists of removing vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespy Pond.

Vegetation would be removed around the pond's perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain approximately 70% open water habitat and 30% vegetation.

The work would be performed using barge mounted excavation equipment and the removed vegetation would be hauled off site for disposal.

After the completion of the initial round of maintenance, vegetation removal would occur no more than once every two years to maintain the ratio of approximately 70% open water and 30% vegetation.

Next slide.

Not Coastal Commission background, please.

To maintain an optimum level of open water and vegetation habitat, the city obtained coastal development permits and waivers from the Coastal Commission prior to certification of the city's local coastal program when needed to perform vegetation management in Crespy Pond.

The proposed permit is based on the previous Coastal Commission approvals, including the balance of open water to vegetation and the avoidance or minimization of potential impacts to coastal resources.

Next slide.

The city prepared a draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration or ISMND for this project, which was circulated for public review and comment from November 3rd through December 3rd, 2025.

The city received six public comment letters and revisions were made to the draft initial study to correct an error in the acreage of vegetation to be removed from 0.55 acres to 0.78 acres to achieve the target habitat ratio of 30% vegetation and 70% open water.

And the environmental analysis found that potential impacts to biological resources and water quality during management activities could be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and that all other environmental analysis topics would have less than significant or no impacts.

A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan or MMRP has been prepared and incorporated, and requirements of the MMRP have been included in the conditions of approval.

Next slide, please.

On March 12, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted the ISMND, approved the project as proposed, and adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan.

On March 20th, 2026, the appellants submitted an appeal which raised four general points.

Regarding work time limits, the first general point, the city has initiated an application for regulatory review of the project by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

This review is pending submittal of additional documentation from the city, including the Coastal Development Permit and the CEQA notice of determination, which would be filed after the city approves the project.

The city would be required to implement any restrictions imposed by the Central Coast Water Board upon completion of the pending regulatory review and imposition of any other requirements at this time would be premature because we don't know what the decision of the water board or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be yet, and their final decisions may impose different restrictions from what the city applied for.

Regarding biological monitoring, the ISMD identified potential impacts to nesting birds and sensitive habitat and included mitigation measures from a qualified biologist to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.

No other potential significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified, and the proposed work would occur and is planned to occur outside of nesting season.

Regarding the listing of the COSTA Commission as a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA, as explained in the staff report, this is not required nor applicable.

And regarding the identification of requirements as explained, or as explained in detail in the final ISM and D, the required information was and is provided, and the proposed project complies with the applicable applicable federal and state requirements.

Next slide.

Therefore, staff recommends the city council deny the appeal, adopt the initial study mitigated negative declaration pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15074, approve a five-year coastal development permit, subject to the findings and conditions of approval as recommended, and adopt the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan.

And this concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for questions, and uh the public works uh staff is also available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Here from our appellants at this time, I'm going to allot 10 minutes total time to the Chiani's.

Thank you.

Um, Anthony Ciani, you have the floor.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um, well, hello and good evening.

My appeal supports the city's project for the vegetation removal at Crespy Pond Estuary with additional conditions in uh to fully implement the LCP land use plan policies pertinent to the protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the Crespy Pond Eschea and adjacent wetland areas.

As the 2024 Crespy Pond Biology report states, quote, the city has not performed vegetation maintenance at Crespy Pond since approximately 2015.

This appeal requests three things.

First, require the work to occur between September 1st to September 30th.

Second, require the vegetation, revegetation of the native plant species around the ponds that are typical of local coastal and wetland habitats.

And third, require a qualified biologist to be the designated monitor.

Look, these three requests are based on science and empirical evidence and seek logical and reasonable conditions of approval.

First, the two primary adverse impacts that the project must avoid are harming wildlife, particularly during the bird nesting season, and degrading water quality of Pacific Groves adjacent special biological significance area from an overflow of Crespy Ponds or water quality.

In addition to the city's CDP, the agencies that provide permit oversight of those two aspects of the project are California fish and wildlife that requires work to be performed between September and February to avoid nesting season, and the water quality board that requires the work to be performed between June and September 30th to avoid the rainy season.

Overlaying these periods provides a common time frame for the work to occur between September 1st and September 30th.

I'm requesting that the Crespy Pond CDP condition number bio-1 to conduct the vegetation removal activities to occur from September 1st to September 30th for the first year, year number two and year number five.

Along that theme, Public Works Director Dan Gough told the Planning Commission on March 12th, quote, we have a tight window to get this done.

I've got to do this outside the rainy season.

So my September to February window just went like September to like October.

End of quote.

Not to mention a Super El Nino is forecast potentially bringing in increased moisture to the West Coast.

In fact, Mr.

GO has submitted both the required applications to wildlife, fish and wildlife, and water quality, not just water quality, for as staff said just now.

So they've submitted both of those for the work to be done in the month of September.

I want to reiterate that.

They've submitted both applications for the work to be done in the month of September, not September to February.

Therefore, it is both logical and reasonable to correct the coastal development permit conditions to be consistent with the required permits from fish and wildlife and the water board to be September 1st to September 30th.

The appellant's second request is based on PG municipal code 2390 150, water quality and marine resources, and the LCP land use plan policy number MAR-6, that staff provided in today's report.

You can look it up.

By the way, before I discuss the policies, I want to clarify two LCP standards of review.

One, LCP section 1.4 clarifies that the following rules of interpretation shall apply.

One, when used in the land use plan, the word shall is always mandatory.

And more specifically regarding water quality and marine resources, the code provides, quote, in order to protect water quality and marine resources in the LCP coastal zone, and to maintain consistency with the LCP's land use plan, development shall conform to all applicable land use plan, water quality, and marine resources policies, and the following requirements.

My words are the guiding words for the city council in the code is the phrase shall conform, which also means makes it mandatory.

Now to the central point, land use plan policy MAR 6 explicitly provides, in part, quote, the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries shall be maintained as well as quote, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats.

That's really important.

This is why we're here.

One is to improve the water quality, which, according to the empirical evidence in the scientific results of the water quality test, provide that Crespy Pond exceeded objectives for fluoride, keldar, nitrogen, sodium, total dissolved solids, and total nitrogen.

Secondly, to remove the overgrowth vegetation in order to restore the past damage to Crespy Pond by not removing vegetation for the last 10 years.

I'm also here to seek restoration of the natural vegetation buffer areas that protect the riparian habitats.

Now, the good news is that Mr.

Goh informed the Planning Commission on March 12th.

He believes that the recommendations of the Monterey Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society to quote Mr.

Guo, quote, that is a good goal that would have to be allowed through the City Council.

Absolutely, if that's desired by the City Council, we would start that process.

End of quote.

The Monterey Audubon Society in California Plant Society goal is spelled out in their letters, and it which I will briefly state here to quote restore Crespy Pond beyond the basic tooley removal that will enhance habitat for birds, other wildlife, improve water quality, and benefit the entire committee.

The other good news is you can make the necessary consistency findings that you can't make unless you do this by adding a condition to implement what Dan Go described to the planning commission as a good goal so he can start the process to carry out the sage advice of two knowledgeable environmental organizations.

I see no need to dig into the work that will be carried out because that will be covered under the best management practices plan for the project, except based on my experience designing and working on projects directly on the shoreline in the Pacific Ocean.

Not only have I but also various regulatory agencies required qualified consultants, consult, conduct the inspections for their field of knowledge, not a member of the construction crew.

The contractors do their work, the consultants do their work, the building inspector do theirs.

Pertinent to protect, preserve, restore, and hands recipe bonds, Eschia, and adjacent wetland areas.

This was done for the um by the Coastal Commission in Pacific Crow to create the shoreline management plan.

That was decided in August of 2017, and you did it.

You hired the consultant, you hired the NTS, you did the work by 2019.

Thank you.

If you do, if not, we'll go over online.

We're taking public comment right now.

Okay.

You could you'll get a chance during uh speed with the application.

Oh, I see.

Yeah.

Okay, before we go to public company, should we pick the this first?

So that they can I apologize.

Okay, go ahead.

Go ahead and we'll take it for the public's benefit.

I need one minute.

No, they're not gonna get any more time.

Go ahead.

I apologize for the interruption.

I was gonna just make my comments during public comment, but as the applicant, I've been seeing this through for the last three years as your public works director.

We were asked to bring this forward by the appellants to move forward with this work.

Um I've done this work numerous times in the past under a waiver that was granted by the Coastal Commission.

At this time, we didn't think that was appropriate, so we went through with this full MND and came up with the mitigated monitoring program, which we anticipate implementing during the construction of this work.

We're gonna be teaming up with Corsco to do the work.

They're the purveyor of the golf course.

They initiated this when I brought it to them after members of the public asked us to begin this work.

I said public works would take on the environmental aspects and the permitting.

That's our forte.

They could initiate the actual construction.

Fast forwarded three years later.

Here we are today.

We're ready to get this thing going.

The M and D clearly has us outside of the nesting bird season, so the biologist can do his pre-construction evaluation for the nesting birds, and if they don't find any, then we could proceed with the construction.

That's 100% typical of how we move forward with every single construction project that has this form of mitigation.

If we have to have a biologist on site for over 20 days monitoring this, it's a it's a no-go.

We're not gonna be able to afford that at 250 dollars an hour.

I mean, we need to be cognant of what I we do the I the initial study with the mitigated negative declaration, so we avoid these impacts and to lessen the impact and make it less than significant.

We're doing it outside the nesting bird season.

The other um items that are addressing the appeal, like the rehabilitation of the complete Crespy Pond, that's fine, but that's significant.

That's gonna be a full environmental impact report with all kinds of planning associated with that.

How to remove the invasive species?

What goes properly back in there?

This isn't that project.

So I just wanted to address those um items when we started this process.

We weren't sure what parameters were gonna be placed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Board.

That's why none of those are in the permit.

Let's see what they say.

We need to get the coastal development permit approved, and then provide our notice of determination to the state and the county prior to us even moving forward with those permits.

So, how can I determine what's gonna be on those permits and put it in the coastal development permit?

This is step one.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go to the public call.

We don't have one caller online, Mayor.

Inga Lawrence and Diamond.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Sometimes it takes an appeal to give a really deep overlook because the city has been so remiss with Crespy Pond for so many years, and we get roped into things too, because without the correct permits, which Dango, of course, is now scrambling to get.

Um, you know, some things should be done and planned ahead of time, and not put together at the last minute, and no, we've got to do it right now.

And that's exactly how the city council is reacting to everything.

Is oh, we've got to do this right now, period.

Well, yes, this needs that.

However, have you ever stepped back to think of how many projects could have that have gone south, could have gone better if you had just stepped back.

And yes, the appeal is necessary so that you are forced to take another look, so that Dan Gogh is forced to take another look and say, Oh, well, we didn't, but we put them in and we're waiting for them so that Joe Sador can do that.

You know, sometimes these things are just necessary, and this mayor and council just do not seem to want to listen.

I'm not sure why, but rush through it.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there any more calling for?

No further hands are raised, Mayor.

Alright, go ahead and close public comment.

Bring back to council for uh discussion and action on the appeal.

Um, who would like to lead off?

Go ahead.

Um, thank you.

As I understand this, so this is a hold on a sec.

Why does Mr.

Channel on his hand up?

Can we ask him that?

He's gonna ask for okay.

Okay, can I have one minute to rebut?

Did you ask for?

I I would like a minute to rebut or not.

But now for any council comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chani.

It doesn't matter, yeah.

Council Chani, I have the floor.

Oh, thank you.

Um I'm only asking for you to add a condition that Mr.

Goh can take the next three years to do uh or longer to develop a project that he says is a good goal, and that is the project proposed by the Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society.

It's a good goal, then just start and and do it.

That's all I'm asking, at a condition that it will be done.

Uh, and he can go ahead with this project uh as he's decided to do.

So I don't that's how we got the shoreline management plan.

Thank you for the extra minute.

Welcome.

Okay, Councilman Garfield.

Thank you, Your Honor.

So our job today is to appeal is to answer an appeal on a specific project.

Um we received some letters with some ideas on what a broader scope, a more elaborate project, uh, a long-term uh renovation restoration, but we only have two letters, and they're both inspiring, but they don't they're not a project.

They're not specifying what actually would need to be done.

And I'm reminded that we we need to keep our our um lane lines clear on what we're doing here today.

Um I do not think that it is our scope to start creating projects.

Um our scope here is to answer the appeal on a specific project that has been three years in the works.

Um, and I appreciate the amount of work and time that has gone the stop start, stop start, little detours, and all of us agree on one thing.

We need to clean up that the lake, the pond, so it works the way it's supposed to work.

And I think that the um massive amount of information that's been created here to figure out how to do this right, how to guard against problems, how to prevent problems, how to address potential issues, has been extremely well done.

Very thorough.

Um so I think that we're in good shape for going ahead with this particular project, and if um I'm hearing Mr.

Chiani correctly, he says all he is asking that all of the work be done in the month of September.

Um, that's not ours to say because that comes from the water board, and the water board hasn't weighed in yet because we haven't done our part.

So our part here tonight is to deal with this appeal so that the rest of it can move forward.

It's it's a pretty narrow job for us.

Um and so I I appreciate it.

Uh the the broader scope that's been brought to our attention.

I think maybe we could ask uh anybody who's interested to come up with an actual project, look at it in the future, but not right now.

This is we got to do what we ought to do right now on this particular thing.

Councilman, tonight.

I don't know if she's actually said that.

Put your words in the round.

I support the staff recommendation.

Um move over to Councilman McDonnell.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, and and actually, I do appreciate um staff's answering and and the mitigations that have gone into making sure that we're complying with the regulations.

Um, and I can see the sentiment that there's concern that we haven't done this for so long, and that is why the appeal is being raised.

So the idea of having the further projects don't get basically forgotten.

It's easy to kind of not get to those, and I know we we haven't had any CIPs this year and in this two-year cycle.

So I feel it is on us, and I appreciate the goal of this appeal actually being to make sure that we put something in place so we move forward with making sure that we're doing that.

So there were things raised, such as the restoration work recommended by the Audubon Committee, and an important context for that is it does state that we are responsible for the overall health, and I kind of see this project as the first step in that.

So having the vegetation removal to get it restored to its proper ratio of water to vegetation is the first step in that process, but I think it's really important that we don't stop there and that we have some kind of mechanism in place for us to look at how do we meet our obligation under um the LCP's bio four to preserve and maintain the wetlands.

Um, and so that actually requires um basically preventing significant disruption of habitat values, and so because we've gone quite a while without any of that restoration, um, we're kind of behind the curve now.

So this is the first step.

So I appreciate the appellant's goal, which is actually to get us to take the next step that was recommended by the Audubon to look at what will that actual restoration be.

So we're doing the removal, getting things in the right ratio, and now the next step is having that habitat restoral.

So I don't know what it takes for us to make that.

I don't know if it needs to be a condition of this in particular.

I think it's very important that we move ahead with this, and and it may not be the place within this particular project to add that, but I think it's really important and incumbent on on council and staff to make sure that we don't drop that piece of it so that it moves forward.

Thank you.

Councilman Purry.

Yes, uh, thank you.

Um I must say that uh the first time I I read this in um uh my my thoughts were I mean, could we have tackled this over email instead of coming to council?

Uh but I think there's a legitimate point here, which is that uh what happens to all those goals that we're defining here, and where do they funnel through?

Do they all have to come to council to be tackled or can they be addressed through a committee, etc.

Uh and so I I think there's needs to be some clarity at least, uh, and this is besides the point of this agenda item, but there needs to be some clarity at least to say if uh the community needs certain goals to be met like this, which is the right committee or board or commission that actually is handling that and takes it forward, and I would say the council itself has defined a broader set of goals that we're all working towards, and therefore within that broader set of goals, if this is a certain goal that comes in, I think it'll naturally fit in.

But I think uh going through the motions with this, it seems like uh a lot of energy that has been going through from staff from us from the to just get to just convey one point, which I think uh could have been done better.

Anyway, I'm supportive of uh the way that uh the staff has addressed those concerns.

Uh I just had one question, which is uh it does say that uh vegetation removal would occur no more than once every two years to maintain the ratio.

Uh and and my question really was like this this entire agenda item talks about extreme conditions like drought, it talks about extreme rainfall.

So obviously vegetation and like water will vary depending on those extreme conditions.

So if anything like that happens within the two years, are we prepared to do something related to this?

And and that could be something that the water resource board may come back to us on.

But I just had a question is that something that we're tackling, or is it a set time limit that only every two years will review this?

I understand that this program is designed to address the situation as it exists right now.

If there are changes to the makeup recipe pond in the future, we may have to go back and through Mr.

Guo adjust how we go about tackling the uh and making sure we have that appropriate 70% open water to 30% vegetation.

So it's just a kind of a wait and see what happens in the future here.

But right now, this coastal development permit is intended to address the issues that we have at hand, and as Mr.

Go said, I think he's doing his best to try and get this done this year so that we at least get the the restoration effort started there.

Right, and so to just so that just to confirm so once we get the starter it's the two year mark before we reassess what the ratio is correct.

I I think yes um that would be a good way to phrase that I know that the planning commission as a condition said that requested that the um the Mr.

Gowler Public Works Department come back and report them to them in either January or February of 2028 on what steps they intend to take that calendar year to address the the vegetation at Crespy Pond.

So that's that's been at least in part on the part of the the planning commission a good check in to make sure that their plans are in line with what is trying to be achieved.

Okay and that actually helps thank you I'm supportive of the staff recommendation.

Councilmember thank you anyone um I agree with council member Garfield I think she uh asked three out of the four questions that I had um thank you for that clarification that was gonna be my answer my question so knowing that this is going to come up before the planning commission in early 2028 um I'm ready to make a motion yes please and um and then we can deal with it in the next CIP project for the others but I think we need to keep this at the narrow scope it is and move forward with this work.

Would you like to recommend I would like to move that uh we follow the staff's recommendation and deny the appeal adopt the initial study and mitigated development declaration persona to SQL guidelines.

Approve a five year coastal development permit subject to the findings and conditions of approval and adopt the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan.

Thank you.

That's the staff record second thank you all right any further discussion all right seeing none we'll take the vote uh we're all here we can take a voice vote uh all in favor say aye aye any opposed none passes unanimously thank you very much everyone for your time thank you staff for working on it and uh okay participating okay we're on to 12a we are on to the process for submitting applications to fill the vacant council seat that we see up here and I'll uh I it'll be our city clerk is gonna give this report yeah she's moving into seat here Mr.

Mayor I'll go ahead and pinch yeah for her yeah um so the for the this item tonight um speaks to speaks to the timing for the the council's process for opening up an application period and for ultimately um choosing an evening when you're gonna select a council member um to sit beside you so we have proposed as of right now that we would open the application period tomorrow which is May 7th 2026 and that application is attached to the staff report tonight um and in terms of when that application period would close that's something we would like to hear back from the city council on and I think a part of that would be depending on when you uh would like to schedule the hearing to actually vet the applications and select somebody so this is a pretty simple straightforward item so that's the extent of my report okay thank you very much we'll take it out to the public uh for comment on this on this timing of the submission of applications essentially is what this is that's about basically all it is I don't see any raised online either okay we'll go ahead and close public comment um so uh I'll go I'll lead off on this one I um I think it's a good idea we take the applications starting tomorrow.

Run them until May 22nd, a Friday, close of business.

I always like those Friday deadlines uh then uh we hold the hearing, the selection hearing on the regular meeting June 3rd um we have a lot of meetings in May, so and other things going on.

So we're gonna be here a lot.

So I'd like to make sure to keep that.

We go up that last week open and uh have the selection during a regular meeting when there's more participation, and on June 3rd, and it'll be the primary item of the night.

And then the person would then begin on June 17th.

You're sworn in that day.

That's right, that's right.

Yes, okay, got it.

All right, I had forgotten that little component.

But their first form meeting is June 17th, and um that's would be what I would recommend for this item.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I mean, go ahead.

Go first.

Um, I like the dates.

Works, you know, people are been aware of this happening, so we can proceed.

I think it's not not news.

Um, I do have a question about this.

Um the process, and it just I'm it's a question question.

Um, is applicants will be posted.

This is the last page, page 518.

Um, the application process on in the um policy.

That's on the next item.

Oh next item.

Okay.

This is just schedule.

Forget I said that.

Okay.

Council Member.

Schedule works for me.

Okay.

The last time, and we were in the process of filling it.

I just want some guidance from the city attorney.

Um, when you file to run for city council, it's public record.

And generally it is, yes.

The last personal contact information and things like that would be redacted.

Redacted, and that's fine.

So the last time we were not, and the public was not aware of who had been applying.

So I just want to get your thoughts on is that okay to make that public record?

I know when you're running for city council, it goes out onto the website.

You can see who's pulled papers, you can see when they've submitted the papers, and you can see when they've been uh verified as a candidate.

And uh I think that we should make sure that we continue that process as transparently as possible.

That would be up to you folks how you wanted to handle that, but generally that's right, that then when you submit that to the city, you're making public those those qualifications and those responses to the to the questions, and and like I said, the personal information would be redacted.

Absolutely.

That was my main uh, I think that was my main question in this that came up last time.

I had several people tell me that they didn't think it was fair that they didn't know who had a had thrown their hat in the ring uh until that night that we did the deliberation.

So uh thank you for that guidance, and I I think we should take that as our task moving forward.

Okay, the only thing I would say is that um I'm okay with that too.

Um, except we have to if it's a weekend, like and someone gets it in at Friday at five, which is a popular time to submit something, or 459 p.m.

Pacific standard time, that we the you know, staffs can take a day to turn it around and all that, and so if we if we go with the like you know 24 to 48 hours to uh have them post online, I think that would be fine.

And then of course at the end, when everything is done, and maybe we get a few last minutes, those can be posted as soon as possible.

Yeah, they don't have to wait until the publication of the agenda.

Right, okay.

Go ahead, Councilman.

Thank you.

Just a follow-up question to that.

Um, it would be helpful if we have an awareness of where the public can go to look at those, where will they be as they are posted?

Because some said their decision on whether or not to run might be based on whether they saw other qualified candidates were running and didn't feel they needed to, for example.

So do we have a place there is a more of a county website where you can see when council is applied, but I don't know what the city has as a mechanism for posting them kind of in real time for the public to be able to know who um has submitted an application.

Yeah, um, we have a standard page uh when elections uh occur.

Um there's a green button that's created specifically for elections.

I wasn't planning to do something that elaborate for this because it's sort of temporary.

Um, but I could do something similar at the top of either council page or uh or the city clerk's page, whatever your preference is.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful so that the public knows where to look for them.

People can verify their own applications were received.

So I think that since that is what indeed they asked for the last time around, having more transparency, I think would really be beneficial.

So thanks to that.

Yeah, maybe maybe we should um allow staff to think about that and not lock them into it so that we can publish it to the applicants and give accurate information, but also ensure that our staff can meet the expectations of the audience.

What do you think, Mr.

Ogerson?

I appreciate that, Mr.

Mayor.

And um, I was also gonna just make sure I clarify what I heard.

So were we saying that basically rolling as applications come in within 24 to 40 hours post them or all at once when the application period closes?

I think they were more rolling.

Okay, yeah, which might only be two or three times.

I mean it's only two weeks.

Yes, uh council member.

Yes, uh, I might be contrary to popular opinion here, but uh I I do think I know and I get it that this is a charter compliance item.

Uh so but I think it's really a short time of a window for us to uh really examine applications, uh review applications, and then really short time for somebody who was appointed to be on it too.

Uh I also think that uh technically if we are appointing somebody uh and then the election is really not too far away, which creates some bias to say is this our favorite candidate for for the election that is ensuing.

So anyway, I have my reservations.

Uh so I I'll be holding no on this.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, would anyone I I'm just gonna go ahead and move to uh make a motion, I guess I'll have to spell it out a little bit, um, since it's a little nebulous.

So I'd like to move that we uh hold the selection hearing on June 3rd, uh that we take applications beginning May 7th and ending May 22nd at close of business.

Um that we have a rolling process for the uh publication of such applications with redacted materials on a 24 to 48 hour basis at the discretion of the city manager.

I think that covers everything, but let me know if not.

Do I have a second?

Did you include the post the application on the council's web page and make it available?

Yeah, okay.

Second.

All right, thanks.

Uh any further discussion.

Seeing no, uh go ahead and take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, all opposed.

Okay, we have one nay.

One nay by Purdue.

Four ayes.

Thank you.

Yes.

Now moving on to the second part of this, which is the uh.

Um now this is part B 12b.

This is the council policy on the vacancy, um, which it was suggests a uh process for uh the nominations and such.

So go ahead and recognize Mr.

Moganson again and staff.

Thank you.

Um honorable mayor and members of the city council staff and members of the public.

Um I have before you tonight uh draft city council policy uh entitled vacancy and an elective office and appointment for your consideration.

Um we all know City Charter Article 12 provides that the council shall fill a vacant council seat for the remainder of the term or until the next general election.

However, the process for how the city council does so has not been previously established.

As the agenda report states, this draft establishes a policy for how that will assist with deliberating on applications and selecting an applicant to fill a vacant seat.

The draft policy includes past practices and prior discussions with the goal to establish a clear and structured process for council appointments when vacancies arise.

And it was also considered for future, because we are moving into districts as well and and may have vacancies there.

Um it's um designed to foster transparency uh inclusivity and equitable opportunity for all eligible candidates.

And so staff's recommendation tonight is to adopt a resolution um approving the draft city council policy entitled vacancy and elective office and appointment.

And that concludes my staff report.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Andrew.

We comment on the item.

I see no hands raised online.

Okay.

We'll close public comment on the item call B, bring it back to the council.

I'm gonna flag something because it's it's not the draft, there's something about the draft that I want to flag for the my fellow colleagues up here.

Um so when I was looking at this draft, um that was prepared, and I appreciate taking a stab at it because it's a difficult thing to do, and we dealt with it last year, and it was it was a challenging process trying to figure out what's the best process for this.

Um, so one thing that I think could be very clear and a little bit more simple is rather than um having two nominations uh from each council member, we simply take one because there's a number of reasons for that.

One is that you may not have two that you would support, so then you're being forced to pick two when you only really want one.

That could be something.

I think that's kind of really important.

Um, but I would I would just say that we simplify this, that we we select our top nomination, and then the way it would be logically would be if you pick your top nomination and four of us pick because it's gonna take a four to win.

So if you pick the top and four of us pick the same person, we're done.

And then the there would be a motion to ratify it.

There would be a vote to ratify by the council.

If not, that's when if there were more than one that make it to the next round, then when we take the vote.

That's and that's gonna take some wordsmithing in the policy, but rather I don't I would prefer not to wordsmith it tonight.

I'd prefer to have staff come back next time, but just set those basic parameters and then just have staff rewrite it, you know, edit it.

It's not a I don't think it'll take too many edits, but um, more than I want to do on the dais, but um, but I think that we have plenty of time to do so.

So that would be my my suggestion just looking at the draft tonight uh over the past few days and just thinking about it.

I think that having one nominee from each person would narrow it down either to two or three, or it would pick somebody and we'd know hey, all four people agreed, and that's that's all it takes to win uh a nomination to win uh an appointment.

So um that's where I'm at.

I'll listen to everyone else as well.

Uh Councilman McDonald.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I had kind of a similar thing.

Thanks so much for taking a stab at starting this.

It's really helpful to kind of have a framework to kind of look at what process will work best going forward.

Um, that was one thing that I noted is rather than having a rush for somebody to make their nomination first.

Um, I like the idea if if everybody kind of picks their top candidate, whether one or two in the one actually does potentially make sense, they do find out who people thought were the top candidates at that time, and if needed, have additional discussion, and that way it's not kind of a rush to nominate first so the others don't get voted on.

So I like that part of the process.

There were two additional things I caught, mainly because we're laying out a process.

I didn't see after the mayor will seek public comment and actual step for council discussion of the applicants.

So I want to make sure we work that in because I think that's an important part of the process for transparency, just making sure that we have that step in there versus going immediately to voting.

I mean, it's sort of obvious, but if it's not spelled out when it's a process, it kind of leaves that out.

Um the other thing that I was concerned about was the um, it was specifically under the mayoral vacancy.

Um, I think it also applied in the other one too, the 30 day.

We have three periods of time during the year where we don't likely have a meeting within 30 days of when this would happen.

So if it happens over where we have the first week of July, the first week of August, and especially the last week of December and the first week of January, when we don't have uh meetings, we would fall outside of the 30 days.

And although we don't have that problem on this council, there could be a future where the mayor takes the opportunity to just decide on their own because we've created a process where we set that up to be the case.

So I don't know what regulations we may have.

I had a discussion with the city manager, and there may be some charter requirements for the 30 days, but I just want to make sure we don't back ourselves into a corner where we set it up that the mayor gets to make the decision without council because of the policy.

I I'm gonna take a stab at that comment.

And because the way it's written, it's already it's already like that.

So there's really nothing we can do about that.

We just have to um that we can do this policy, but uh we can't override the charter with our with some language here at the day.

That's only important.

That's the problem with that.

So go ahead, councilman.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, so my original question that wasn't in the right place was actually what you asked about, which was the posting of the things that's in the policy as well.

So covered I'll discovered.

Sorry about that.

I I would like to ask staff why if there's a reason that we should consider why you put in two people being nominated by each council member instead of one.

If there's a something that you foresaw that we're perhaps not considering.

No, not really.

We just I mean if you guys are agreeable to the one, that's fine too, but we just thought if they were a top two, it was just a number we kind of paid out.

Right.

And my question was based on there have been other cities that have done this.

There's been a sort of a uh a few instances, and perhaps there's a wonderful way to do this that has occurred to some other city.

Um, I I do appreciate the not having a race to get a name in there.

Oh, oh my, my, um, just to have a very deliberate process where we hear from everyone and then proceed in a regular way.

Um, and I also really appreciate having a chance for all of us to weigh in and approve of it of a process before the day that it's gonna be used.

So I'm supportive of this.

I think it's good.

I I like the idea of as a constructive suggestion.

I don't have any reason to believe that there was a reason for a double nomination just to get more names in.

Um, and I appreciate your point about being forced to put in a second one when you have a clear first choice or only choice.

So um I'm supportive of this.

That changes.

Got it.

All right, perfect.

Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, first of all, I appreciate the staff putting this together.

Um obviously last time we went through the rounds to decide what what we need to do.

Um I had a couple I think two or three comments here.

One is uh um so the last go around, right?

Like everybody presented, but there was no room for QA for us.

And I think it may not be a bad idea to Councilmember McDonald's point too.

Is maybe we should have a set of five questions and there was Ken.

Okay.

Okay, so so will that be here in this then?

We we can do it for sure, after the public comment.

Okay, so so yeah, and I I think we should also keep the questions the same for everybody.

Um so that like it keeps it consistent.

So anyway, I I didn't see it here, so I just wanted to call that out.

Um the second thing was uh the five minutes for qualifications, any I mean if it's somebody's a community member uh is five minutes enough or not, is all that I'm debating, like if anybody could explain 70 to 30 ratio crest people on to me in five minutes, great.

But uh, but it's it's it's one of those things where is five minutes enough or not?

So just something to consider uh and and by policy if we say five minutes and are we able to extend it to a couple of minutes if we wanted to on the diet or or not if we wanted to.

I would say yes.

So we can decide.

And I could put five to ten and the council can decide depending on how many applicants maybe.

The chair depends.

It's depending on the number of applications, right?

If it's only two, I'll be able to hear a little bit more.

But if it's like 20, obviously I want to keep it to five minutes.

So I think at the council discretion might make sense.

So how are we want to ward it?

Is but I was just calling that out.

Uh and then third, uh, is uh it seems like we've somewhat addressed this year, but must be conducted without bias or undue influence, etc.

But whenever I uh I think I when I were Iran or after I ran, I did and I continue to file a form 700s.

So it can we have the applicants file a form 700 or something of that sort, which says there are no potential conflicts of interest uh from from each applicant.

That will be helpful for us to review to see if there's any undue influence or not.

So but there is a bias or undue influence listed in here.

I don't know how how that that is uh captured.

It would take some research and and some time to draft something along those lines to make sure we didn't run afoul of everything.

I see what you're saying.

Sort of if you came to council, would you, you know, would there be things, but there are a lot of um ethical rules uh that prohibit folks from participating in decisions if they did have a conflict um or if there was bias.

Um so it's something that we could look into.

It would be sort of um not a typical thing to sort of preemptively say I have these bias types things, but I do think there are mechanisms in place in in in in the FPPC regulations and things of that nature that guard against that.

And is it as simple as like some candidate declaring I affirm by the FEBC rules instead of us getting into all of this?

It it would be premature until such time as they were an elected official or or of the city or appointed official of the city.

Okay, understood.

Um anyway, so those are my thoughts, but I appreciate really appreciated formalizing this.

Uh, it's really constructive.

Thank you.

So I heard that one thing that we probably may we may all agree on is that and all then I'll go to my colleagues, but was that we're gonna we like the process so far, but we want to have a QA section, and I forgot how we did that last time, but we'll try to weave that in.

Okay.

And then um, and then the time thing, and council member.

Yeah, your honor, the last time I believe all of the council members submitted a question, uh, and then those questions were all put together, and then everybody went in our kind of a round, Robin to ask.

After the five minutes, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, understood.

I think that'll work again.

Is that your recollection?

Yeah, and everybody you asked the same question to each candidate, the same question each candidate.

Yes, you had the same question, and they though at that time they were based on what questions you'd been asked uh while campaigning.

So it was a sort of way of bringing someone up to speed.

Um, but I I would suggest that we settle on a time that people have because they prep it.

Um, we can do it yet.

Let's wait until the policy comes back again fresh, because um they're gonna have to we want to say I want to see how many people are like applying.

I don't uh I don't want to set a 10-minute timer and then we have 30 applicants, we'll never get out of here.

So but my suggestion would be to give people enough advanced notice of how much time they will have, even if it's decided after the application period closes, um, so that they're not coming here with uh five-minute speech and only get four minutes.

Um that one, but but I think your point about letting somebody know and having a flexible, but they need to know while they're doing their preparation of the the five or seven minutes.

They haven't submitted yet, so I think I think we're okay, but go ahead.

So once the application is submitted, by the time we come to the by the time the agenda is posted, we're gonna know how many.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to say at that posting, we can say it's gonna be seven minutes, it's gonna be five minutes, it's gonna be three minutes, depending on how many people.

So to me, that should be.

I mean, it's we always post before typically before Friday at five.

That gives you, you know, five days.

Yeah.

I think we can get it done.

I'm not worried about it.

Um, so at this time, do we want to have a motion?

I know uh yeah, we could just we might have a discussion point, but do we want to have a motion um that we're gonna go down to one nominee draft uh and make those amendments that we uh that we talked about, and that the time allotted will be decided when the agenda is posted.

Okay, so I'm gonna make a motion then that we're we're gonna um ask staff, direct staff to revise the policy as drafted to reflect each council member receiving one nomination to reflect that questions will be asked of each applicant by the council during the process, somewhere in the process, that the time will be set, um that the amount of time given for the comments from each person, not um including answering questions, would be set at the time the agenda is posted, and uh for the meeting itself.

That way we can discuss it more on our own.

So I think that's what I have right now.

I think that that covers everything.

So that'll be my motion right now.

Do I have a second?

We got a second by majority.

Okay, it's discussion.

Go ahead, Laurie.

Great, thank you.

And to follow up on um Councilmember Paturi Paduri's point.

That's my work.

Thank you.

Um to follow on Council Member Paduri's point.

Um, for the most part, the questions were consistent last time.

There were certain ones that were like maybe almost like a gotcha question for a specific candidate, and I want to make sure that we have a fairness and consistency.

When we do the candidate forums, all of the candidates get the same question.

So I think it's important that when we set the policy, that we do have a set of questions that are consistently asked, kind of like we've done in other forums where maybe one person picks and asks the same question of each candidate.

But I want to have that fairness and that consistency in it.

And I don't know if we need to add it as a separate item, but also I think it may be important to add the point about council discussion, even though it's obvious it's not in the policy, so up to um you to decide if you want to add that as well.

So just to discuss the last point that you made about discussion.

I there's gonna obviously I think there would be natural discussion if of a motion and a vote were to occur.

However, if four people, if someone were to, after all the questioning in the speech and there were four nominations, we're not gonna be having a council discussion in that instance.

But I think that if there is a vote, there could be discussion.

However, I don't I don't feel that I'd like to impose that.

I mean, it's like could be a gut feeling between two very similar candidates or I I don't know.

I don't want to try to force people to try to verbalize why they chose somebody.

I think they have the right to choose who they feel is best based on their own internal um mentation or whatever they think or analysis.

So I I don't really want to put that in the policy myself.

Um so I wouldn't be interested in that in that as any kind of amendment.

And what what was the first one?

Um the first one was um making sure it was a consistent set of questions.

Okay, I think we might have to tackle that on the next meeting.

I'm not getting and I think I want to vote on this motion before I trying to add that in at any point in any way.

And if I can make just a counter argument, not to say I would change the motion, but um my reasoning for thinking it's important to have council discussion is to provide transparency to the public as to what qualities, for example, we think are important about the candidates for me.

So for me, it was more of a transparency thing.

So it doesn't look like you know a popularity contest or whatever if we're not clear on our reasons for selecting it's less transparent.

So that was the only reason for the recommendation.

I'm not sure it's less transparent, but go ahead, Jeff.

Yeah, I was just gonna suggest that there's language in here which says all stages of the nomination process must be followed without bias.

Similarly, all stage of the voting process must be conducted without bias.

We can just add fairly and without bias.

And I think that fairly will address these questions.

It says every stage of the process, so technically it'll address what you're looking for.

Okay, uh, let's go ahead and take a recall vote, Sandra.

Okay.

I have a Mayor Smith.

Hi.

Councilmember Padery.

Hi.

Councilmember Garfield.

Aye.

Councilmember Rao.

Aye.

And Councilmember McDonnell.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Um.

I think I'm gonna move it on to the next item.

Um, here we are.

Item 13A.

We are.

Mr.

First, we're we are this is the region.

TAC subgroup recommendation on the 2030 collection.

Honorable mayor, council members.

Next on the agenda is consideration of the region technical advisory committee's recommendation to initiate a request request for proposals or RFP process for the franchise waste hauler agreement with a current agreement set to expire in 2030.

As background, the technical advisory committee is comprised of representatives from the participating agencies within the regional waste management district.

Pacific Grove, Carmel, Sand City, Del Royo, Seaside, Marina, and Pebble Beach Community Service District.

In September of 2025, the City Council approved the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to engage the consulting firm, HFNH, to help facilitate this process.

With the support of the consultant team, the technical advisory committee has evaluated the available options and is now recommending initiation of an RFP process.

Present in the audience tonight, we have Zoe Schultz of Region Monterey and Nick Becker of the Pebble Beach Community Service District, who was the technical advisory committee chair, who both of them along with myself will be available for questions after the presentation.

Also, thank you to the representatives of our current franchise waste hauler green waste who are in attendance and the representatives of other interested waste hauler organizations who are also here tonight.

Thank you guys.

At this time, I'm happy to introduce Sarah Perrell from HFNH Consultants who will be giving the presentation.

Thank you.

All right.

Testing.

Thank you, George.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Sarah Perell with HF and H consultants.

And I'm here today to uh give a report out on our efforts with the stakeholder engagement process as well as the recommendation of the technical advisory committee's uh subgroup.

Next slide, please.

Uh so we'll go ahead and look over the engagement results for the four sectors, residential, multifamily, commercial, and industry, and we'll also look at the key considerations that the subgroup deliberated on.

And we'll talk about infrastructure and readiness at the Monterey uh the Monterey region facility.

Um we'll look at timeline and next steps, and then ultimately that final recommendation of the subgroup.

Um so we'll start with the engagement results.

Um so our first phase of the stakeholder engagement was to conduct a statistically valid survey, and this included all seven of the member agencies.

There were 450 uh survey respondents, and this was uh conducted by Probulski Research.

Um so we asked uh the survey conducted um had several questions, but I'm only gonna go over a few of the slides uh that are pertinent to this discussion.

Uh the first question that we had asked was general satisfaction with green waste recovery, and what we uh saw reported was there was 93% satisfaction.

Um we do often see this as um high satisfaction with waste haulers.

That was the case uh when waste management also conducted a similar survey 15 years ago and we really accredit this to the staff, the collection um drivers, the customer service department, all of those frontline workers that interact with the community day to day.

They are providing um great quality service and have done so since they many of them worked with waste management at the time when Greenways took over that transition, and so we expect to continue to see um quality service, and that often is a result of high satisfaction.

Next slide, please.

Among those that were satisfied, this is to represent just kind of what those intensity levels were.

Um we saw about 66 percent were saying they were very satisfied, where we had um only about 29 percent or 28 percent that were very unsatisfied.

Next slide, please.

Um, to look at uh what folks were saying um that were unsatisfied.

Um the number uh one reason was high cost compared to the level of service they were receiving, and that's a theme that we're gonna talk about throughout the presentation.

We saw several different um sectors that provided us feedback specific to affordability and cost sensitivity.

Next slide, please.

So here's an example.

We also asked the community how they felt about their quarterly garbage bill.

And we saw that 47% are saying that it's just about right.

But we're also seeing 29% say that it's too high.

And this is something that we're seeing regionally and nationally that there's a cost sensitivity and affordability concern.

And so that's something that we'll continue to talk about.

Next slide, please.

When it comes to affordability, convenience, service quality, and environmental impact.

So we asked several questions to try to understand what priority the community feels about those four items.

And affordability did come out on top as the most important priority to the community.

Next slide.

Right below that was quality of service.

And so continuing to keep those frontline workers serving the community and providing that quality of service is important to the community.

Next slide.

Next slide.

And finally, at the end, it was environmental impact.

So we're seeing that the community still values environmental impact, but it is a lesser priority when considering affordability and service quality.

Next slide.

So the next step was to have some engagement with the community.

So we offered some community meetings where they could participate and provide a little bit more of an open forum feedback to us.

Next slide.

So we hosted three virtual public meetings, various days and times.

We had 17 members of the public join those meetings and provide feedback to us.

And that last meeting, we did offer that in Spanish.

Next slide.

And what we heard from the community was that they do have a general high satisfaction level with green waste.

Some of the concerns that were voiced was specific to the residential sector, was some education outreach awareness around programs that they are paying for but aren't utilizing, mostly because they aren't sure how to use them or that they're available.

They would like some more customized services, some additional features to make customer service more convenient, like the phone app, and then higher response times for customer service.

Next slide.

So we made attempts to reach 46 different property managers.

We were able to conduct seven interviews for property managers that have properties all over the peninsula, and those properties ranged from eight to 106 units.

Next slide.

So we made 34 attempts to connect with the commercial businesses and were able to interview 15 of those.

Next slide, please.

And we did hear a little bit more mixed feelings about their satisfaction with green waste recovery.

Often this is because businesses have some very specific nuances to service issues that they may have.

But some of the common concerns was again cost impacts, and they're concerned also of having their rates raised.

They also voiced reliable, consistent service is important, particularly in the restaurant industry.

Having any missed collections really impacts their business quite a bit.

And that's a little bit unique for Carmel and Pacific Growth specifically, but finding some solutions to that, which changed when the contract was set in 2015.

And then again, some education and outreach efforts so that they can be supported in their regulatory compliance.

Next slide, please.

As kind of the last sector that we communicated with in the stakeholder engagement process was industry stakeholders.

Next slide, please.

And so what we were trying to understand is if we were to go out to a competitive RFP, is this a desirable market?

Are there other service providers that are interested in proposing on this service area?

So we had five different service providers come out to the subgroup and present, and all of those service providers did express interest in a future partnership with the seven participating member agencies.

Next slide, please.

So this is just a map so that you can kind of get a feel for what the marketplace looks like in the surrounding area.

There are several service providers that are providing service right around your service area.

Green waste, of course, there's Monterey Disposal, Recology, Republic Waste Management, they're all in close proximity.

And then right outside, and there are several other service providers that have voiced interest in San Benito County as well.

Next slide, please.

We also, of course, had Green Waste come out and present to the subgroup, and they voiced enthusiasm to continue to be a partner with the member agencies.

They're open to sole source negotiations.

However, during their presentation, they did provide a estimated potential rate increase that was much higher than a CPI type of increase.

And so that was something that the subgroup really spoke about in their deliberations.

We also asked about if there was a risk of acquisition.

They recently went through that process several years ago, and at that time had voiced that they typically hold their assets for about seven to ten years, and we're getting close to that end of seven to ten years.

And so there was just a question about whether that's a risk in the near future in the item was left pending.

Next slide, please.

So now I'm going to talk about some of the key considerations that the subgroup spent several months talking about.

The first one is really just good governance.

This is one of the, I would say highest priority to the subgroup.

They really feel like they need to have a competitive RFP process will deliver the best value, and they can say to the public that they got the best value for their service provider that's defensible to a sole source negotiation.

You can really only say that you got the best deal with that specific, or the best, you know, deal with that specific service provider that you're negotiating with.

Next slide, please.

Affordability, because we saw that be a consistent theme throughout all of our engagement efforts.

That was something that the subgroup felt was really important to take into consideration.

And with an RFP process, you're able to really get that best pricing.

And so that's one of the reasons why they feel it's important to go to a competitive RFP.

Also because we were provided a much higher than CPI increase by Green Waste during that presentation.

That was something that they felt in order for us to have any rate increases, it was important for them to have a transparent competitive pricing process.

Next slide, please.

There was high levels of satisfaction with green waste, which was represented also through much of the engagement efforts that we did.

And so the subgroup is very interested in having green waste propose on this RFP process.

You know, there's the frontline staff has provided quality service to the community, and that's also was seen in our survey results.

We would make sure that all of the labor protection provisions are in any future agreement.

And so if there were a different service provider that was selected other than Green Waste, all of those frontline staff would be offered the opportunity to stay serving the community.

Next slide, please.

And then the assignment risk, which was definitely a lesser priority when we were thinking about these key considerations, but still something that was discussed by the subgroup.

If it does happen that there was an acquisition, some of the questions that were raised were would there still be the same labor relation values of a new company?

Would there be a local decision making or would it be more bureaucratic?

Those are all unknowns.

And so that was something that was discussed during those subgroup meetings.

Next slide, please.

Alright, so now we'll talk a little bit about the region Monterey infrastructure and readiness.

As I mentioned, Region Monterey does have a publicly owned collection yard, and this really was designed so that in the future there could be a competitive opportunity for any service provider to come in and provide quality service to the participating member agencies.

And that was the goal when designing that.

And so that's something that's really valuable.

It offers this T turnkey solution, where there's the collection yard, there's landfill recycling material facility, and organics composting all on site at the same location, which means anyone can come in and really provide that service.

Next slide, please.

Let's go over some timeline and next steps.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So in the immediate, we are in the process of going to each of the elected bodies and presenting the stakeholder engagement results and the subgroup's recommendation.

Assuming that the elected bodies approve the subgroup's recommendation, in late 2026, we would be issuing that RFP, developing the RFP and issuing it to qualified service providers.

In 2027, we would be reviewing all of those proposals, conducting some evaluations, interviews, and then working with each individual agency to craft any of the nuances that would go into their specific agreement.

In early 2028, we would be coming back to all of the elected bodies to present a recommendation for a service provider.

And then from 2028 to 2030, which is when the current agreement expires, we would be allowing that new service provider to have a transition period, which gives them time to procure vehicles or any other infrastructure that they may need, as well as conduct some community outreach uh to each of the communities.

Throughout that process, the subgroup does recommend um adopting the process integrity policy, which helps govern uh communication with any potential um proposers.

And so that's uh also for your consideration.

Next slide, please.

And then the final recommendation, next slide, please, is from the subgroup to adopt a competitive rfp process as well as um that process integrity policy thank you so much and i am available for any questions thank you very much for presentation we've got to the public um see if there's any hands yeah one hand on mine i do have one hand on mine lawrence and donor thank you so much and thank you for that really good presentation of all the things that i have been railing against for the last at least 10 years of this franchise that the city has with green waste and through three environmental program managers at least whether george first caleboros i mean i have been saying in public meetings absolutely alone and that we need they have not been affordable whatsoever they changed that we I'm a senior resident homeowner of 70 years plus and I have to have garbage but I don't create garbage however they've made everything less convenient and more expensive and they leave my can in the middle of the street they pick it up and dump it in the middle of the street they don't care it's just open and my neighbor thank god brings it to the curb for me now but this is a competitive process I have said there is no for a while there with green waste I made it that that I could have it my little one my smallest can which is all the garbage I have picked up once every other week but then they found out the Pacific Grove doesn't have that in their franchise agreement so I was back to the full thing I don't even need my 32 gallon can out there every time I put my but I have to pay for it and I'm a low-income senior this is absolutely ridiculous affordability thank god other people are talking about this finely I have been trying to talk about it for 10 years or more and here you have just presented that your biggest thing I was not part of any of your meetings with this consulting firm I was not part of any of your survey but believe me you have been speaking to me absolutely yes we need an RFP yes we need to get rid of green waste absolute when Emily from Green Waste came in with her declottage and her husky voice that male city council drooled over her and just greenlighted everything she said and has been for years I am so thankful the times have changed thank you yes we need the RFP I gather we've the city's already committed with the MOU to paying for this consulting firm anyway we need some change and surveys time I can like the council for discussion and action on the on the matter yes chaps what's more thank you was there and could open up for public comment in in the building okay go on I will take them first usually gotta be quick on the council, thank you for the presentation.

I'd just like to uh ask the uh either the council or through the RFP process to help us understand a bit more about the Pareto, which indicates the high customer satisfaction on the residential usage.

I'd like to understand what some of the key performance indicators are that were surveyed by the public, uh, certainly for the RFP if it's competitive, to understand how the current and competing firms would address the most important components that make up customer satisfaction.

But I also like to see if we could be uh transparent about any future environmental regulations that are coming up that may affect the RFP that are not part of the current scope of work that's being provided by uh by uh green, uh, so that we have that as an indicator too if it's going to be a cost driver to uh residential or to commercial waste rates, uh, that we're aware of that up front, and we can understand that as a potential driver.

Thanks very much.

Yeah, in the name of what?

It's Craig Jorrow.

For the record.

Thank you for the comments.

Uh Zoe.

Yeah, Ms.

Schultz.

Thank you.

Mayor Council, great to see all of you tonight.

Uh my name is Zoe Schultz.

I'm the director of communications at Region Monterey, and I just wanted to share our role in this process.

Uh, we are a coordinator of this process but not party to any of the recommendations that were being made tonight.

Um, but as the coordinator of the tax subcommittee, um, just wanted to let you know that your staff member George First, uh, as well as others from the seven member jurisdictions uh that are served currently by Green Waste, have um not taken this decision lightly.

And um, this is quite a process.

Um, as you saw from the survey results, we have some great partners both in Green Waste and as uh other regional partners in our area that are serving um our cities, and uh want to acknowledge all of them tonight.

Want to also acknowledge HF and H.

They have done quite a bit of work for us.

They were part of this last process, so they've been instrumental in uh guiding us all in um making this recommendation.

And um lastly, I wanted to share that the region board of directors is uh has supported this recommendation.

Um, it has gone to a few of the city councils and boards uh that we represent so far.

Uh, has been approved uh by the Pebble Beach Community Services District, City of Delaware Oaks, and last night at the City of Carmel.

So you are the fourth of seven to hear this recommendation.

They all so far have also supported this recommendation.

That said, you should make this uh decision autonomously for your own city and with your own considerations at play.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thanks for coming up.

Sir, um uh Ms.

Schultz, actually, I have one question for you.

Service may I just put you just to the side for just a sec, sir.

Um, so Mr.

Gerard in the audience you raised a question, and I think if folks want to give you guys ideas for when you do the RFP, they can just simply reach out to Mr.

First or to directly to your subcommittee group, right?

To give input on that.

I think that would be appropriate.

Yeah, we'd love to hear community feedback on what folks are looking for in the new uh in a new contract.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sir, come on forward.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Smith and Council members.

I will say that going to some of these meetings now, the level of uh different subjects that you all have to be knowledgeable on is crazy.

So I respect it, I respect all the responsibilities you've all taken on.

All right, my name's Tim Morris.

I'm district manager for waste management.

Um based here in Monterey County.

Uh I'm here to speak tonight in support of the resolution to proceed with the committee of RFP for Pacific Growth.

Although time doesn't allow me to fully explain the benefits of partnering with WM, I respectfully ask you to support the recommendation of the technical advisory committee.

To initiate the RFP process, it's a transparent and structured approach that will provide our team as well as other teams the opportunity to demonstrate how WM can deliver reliable service, long-term value, and positive impacts for your community.

Monterey County, as you saw by the map, um WMRE services and incorporated areas.

We do City of King City, we do the state parks, we do many school districts in Pacific Grove and all the other peninsula cities.

We're well positioned to serve your community.

Nearly three decades, WM service Pacific Grove and the other peninsula cities.

So in realistically, it's the same drivers.

I see the same drivers in my neighborhood, so it's they just kind of go from one company to the other company.

In 2014, the jurisdictions use the competitive process to select the provider.

So this history shows that the jurisdictions understand the value of testing the market, not avoiding it.

A competitive RP does not replace workers or disrupt service, it modernizes services, uh tailors solutions for to each community's needs and strengthens accountability while ensuring value.

As we saw, that's the important part.

Our WM team consists of frontline behind the scene employees today, live and work in and around the areas every day.

Many of these WM employees are service Pacific Grove in the past.

Personally, I moved to the area for WM, I don't ever plan on leaving.

I'm from the Midwest.

This weather is perfect.

So even when people say it's bad, it's not bad.

And I do understand that and I'm learning more about the unique challenges of each jurisdiction.

I will say that even though it's uh in the in the in the end, every jurisdiction will be able to have their own unique and special rules and stipulations in the contracts.

So I appreciate your time.

And uh I know I don't take questions, but I appreciate your respect and respect your decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any further folks want to make comment tonight.

Okay, here we go.

One more.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

Called me out.

I'm Emily with a husky voice.

Um, and I will say that that represents continuity.

Um, I was here um, I worked for Green Waste from 2008 to 2021 and was involved in the original procurement uh negotiations, the transition into Pacific Grove and the other peninsula cities, and um had staying power, and I'm very passionate about this industry today.

I'm actually here representing Republic Services.

Um we are a provider in the city of Salinas.

We are enthusiastic and really excited to bid here, support the recommendation for y'all to go out to RFP.

And um, I can say that from my perspective, I was there until 2021 when the acquisition happened.

I know that um Sarah from HFNH mentioned that the management team had transitioned over, and I know it's been echoed time and time again here, and really important for you guys to remember that the frontline workers stay intact.

That's something really unique about the HFNH RFP process is it places priority on continuity of service.

The fact that the regen infrastructure is here, it's really a cost competition around just the collection service, but utilizing the same labor, uh, the same metrics.

So uh I would expect that there wouldn't be too much variability in the proposals that you get.

I know that there are a lot of really interested service providers, and um I'm absolutely blushing, and it takes a lot to make me blush.

So, Inga, again, thank you for the call out.

Um, I'm memorable apparently.

Um, but I do hope that you all go out to bed.

We're excited and enthusiastic about putting together a proposal, and um, I know that me and a couple of other folks in uh Republic are very familiar with the intricacies of Pacific Grove.

Um, Saturday service, public litter containers, the bakery getting Saturday service um for food waste and carts.

So, um, really spent a lot of the time um on the ground and making sure that we're meeting the needs back then, but cost competitiveness is gonna be paramount.

So I definitely want you guys to hear that we understand that and look forward to submitting a proposal if you support the recommendation to go out to RFP.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm actually from Green Waste.

So my name is Manuel Vay.

I'm the vice president of municipal franchises for Green Waste, and as you've heard tonight, since 2015, Green Waste has been proudly serving the seven region member agencies, including the city of Pacific Grove.

I would just like to reiterate green waste long-term and unwavering commitment, both to the city of Pacific Grove and our customers throughout the peninsula cities.

Um we understand, acknowledge, and fully respect the lengthy amount of time that went into this evaluation and proposing uh the recommendation that you have before you tonight.

We respect that.

Obviously, we'd be remiss if we didn't see there being some alternative options, whether that be through Source Source negotiating a new agreement with Green Waste or leveraging the nine years that remain in the existing contract and extending based on that.

There are very strict guidances within our franchise agreement that maintains rate stabilization.

And also it outlines what the future holds for us from a standpoint of what we live and breathe on by the franchise agreement terms and conditions.

So there is some safeguarding there.

I would be remiss if I also didn't mention all of our frontline workers who work tirelessly every single day in these communities.

Um we've heard a lot about the former um company and us acquiring those employees, but there is a very large team, and 37% of our workforce today came with us in 2015 from the previous service provider, but that means that the vast majority of our frontline workers today have been hired and uh been part of the green waste team since that time.

Um, so again, I respect this process.

We thank you guys for your partnership.

We're going to continue to provide the best service possible to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

We're coming up in peace field tonight.

Is there anyone else?

If anyone else please cue up.

Yeah, good evening, Mayor Smith, uh, council members.

Uh, just allow me to introduce myself.

My name is Nick Becker.

I'm the general manager for the Pell Beach Community Service District.

Also, as uh George mentioned I served as the chair on the technical advisory committee, uh heavily involved in the last year of uh looking into this issue on behalf of all seven member agencies.

I I just wanted to let you know that you've been well represented by your staff.

Uh and uh this has not been a decision that's come lightly to staff to present this recommendation to you today.

I also want to recognize um the results of the survey do indicate that we've been very well served by Green Waste, and and we want to recognize them for uh providing service for the last 10 years, but we also want to recognize that uh affordability was was a major factor amongst all sectors surveyed, and uh we felt like that weighed uh quite heavily into our recommendation today.

The other key considerations were uh you've got a very competitive market right now.

Uh, I think that's representative with uh a number of uh potential haulers that are presented to you here tonight.

Um, and the other thing just to mention is um the uh the truck yard at the region uh facility really is uh a uh uh a key element to to create a low barrier to entry.

Uh it really eliminates the need for any uh capital infusion for any um potential haul or having to come there and invest for a period of time.

So with those considerations, um we we weighed uh that all up and really came up with the recommendation that's before you uh and really the last uh major consideration uh I want to share with you is that going out to uh an RFP through a uh a fair competitive and transparent process will really assure you that you're getting the best rates for your constituents.

So with that, I thank you for your time.

Thanks, appreciate that comment.

Thank you so much.

That's what we're very interested in doing.

Is there anyone else?

All right, we're closing public comment on and bring it back to the council.

Um, and uh anyone want to make a motion that seems pretty unanimous.

Absolutely, you can do whatever you want.

Council Member Baduri.

Sure, just a quick question.

Sure.

So um the I think the work that the consortium of people from different representative groups has done, an excellent job.

Um, it's really nice to see how much work went into uh figuring out what the best approach would be.

And I'm appreciating that you're open to people offering you their suggestions about um how to prevent raccoons from knocking over the bins or something like that.

And I'll be sending you a little message.

Um, because I have a couple things, but how does this decision actually get made?

I mean, we have a group that's working on this, they're putting out the RFP.

The RFP comes back in.

Who makes the decision and how do we end up with something that is in some way customized for Pacific Grove?

I'm going to stamp on that one.

Although, Sarah Hannah is just knowing that HFNH was heavily involved in the process in 2014-2015.

I myself was not, so I'm hoping she has a better answer than I would.

There you go.

Thank you.

I think I'd learned that.

Um so that's a great question.

Um there is definitely opportunities for feedback.

We typically um continue our work with the subgroup, which has all of the member agencies involved, and we create um a sort of template agreement based off of a design intake that we go through uh with this subgroup to really understand what the needs are.

Um and then um we take that template agreement and meet with each individual agency um to kind of weave in any of the specific needs for each community.

So there are definitely uh many opportunities for the public to uh send recommendations to have you know all of that go to either uh region or to uh staff here at the city so that we can take all of those into consideration while we're developing even the template agreement, and then also another opportunity when we're um really focusing specifically on weaving those nuances in um for the city specific agencies.

But the council will be the one voting on those things that are presented.

Yes, to them.

Okay.

So then we would take so typically the subgroup would create a recommendation of what um what they would like to see, bring that back to uh the council, and then they would um direct.

Okay.

Got it.

All right, thank you for that.

That's helpful.

Yes, Councilmember Perderi.

Yes, uh I think we've established that at least um Republic Services has an official spokeswoman here, uh, through this uh through this exercise.

But uh I I remember because this came on regen, and so this is my second go-around, so so less work for me to read this.

But uh the I mean this first question I had was this is a full four years uh ahead of like schedule to decide somebody.

I mean, we're not even hosting the Olympics, but but I mean, four years seems like a long time.

And and so, but I I realize the value of like going through this now.

Like I mean, the exercise that we are taking.

Uh it's really uh a combination of like jurisdictions coming together to make sure we're all doing the right thing.

Um so we we had unanimously like agreed to go to the RFP.

I I really recognize also like everybody involved, like the technical advisory group and everybody, the staff that's going in behind the scenes, going to every jurisdiction to present this and so on, uh, really a collaborative effort to the core.

Uh I my personal view here is that uh things happen when when you're looking at contracts for 10 to 15 years, so SB 1383 is a prime example.

Like that's a change that has happened during the course of the contract.

And I hear when when I talk about SB 1383 to anybody, the the first thing that I say that I hear is that the smell uh we don't want to, I mean, there's there's too much smell with me doing composting uh within the green kind of box, etc.

And and so I don't know how we can address those elements like regulations within the scope of the contract during the contract, so therefore an RFP makes sense to see if we can have some environmentally conscious solutions or or maybe better solutions that perhaps uh green based may have but is not addressable through the contract, but can be done through an RFP exercise.

So I think I'm I'm really uh supportive of that RFP in that regard, which will address uh like future regulations.

Uh the other thing too is I I did not realize that the uh PE firm had bought bought Greenway.

So again, like the longevity of the contract kind of plays into elements that we do not foresee.

And I think we just need to be prudent to make sure that our contract is taking care of all those elements as we move forward.

Uh, and I think uh the reason I'm speaking out is really uh no matter how much education we do, there's always like uh folks that that say we did not know about this.

Uh we we have not heard about it.

I have not had a chance to provide questions, and I think this I just want to speak up on this matter to say that this is here, this is now.

We have some points of contact within even within the city and and at a regional level.

So I I would say staff, if we could do whatever we can to kind of publicize this a little bit more.

Uh, no matter how much we do, it's not enough.

So, but uh would say let's just do it so that we can get all the feedback that we want, so we can incorporate those items with within Pacific Grove.

But thank you.

Yeah, so yeah, everyone's on notice that you can send them in and commend me sending your comments, uh, whatever it is that you want to have input on, and then so you don't come out in 2030 going, what happened?

I agree with that.

Uh Councilman McDonnell.

Thank you.

Yeah, and and I agree that this sort of provides an opportunity if you want to say that for a reset, because there have been a lot of things that have changed, and we have we have heard concerns from citizens.

And actually, when I started on council, they had us meet with members of the chamber, and their number one consent complaint was actually that cardboard waste.

We no longer have a mechanism for disposing of our cardboard waste, but under the current contract, my understanding was there wasn't a way to address that.

So, so it seems like maybe this is the opportunity to do that.

Um, it's it's unfortunate that we're hearing the number of instances of garbage cans being dumped over in the middle of the street, which can be challenging for people who aren't maybe as young and as able as others might be in the community.

I would probably have trouble picking that up as well, but it would be an opportunity for us to look at those issues.

But the bigger one I see is at least here in Pacific Grove and maybe other places.

We have a lot of renters and a lot of rental properties, e-waste.

Um, this is just one example, as well as the green waste of things where we don't have a good process in place.

Most people aren't gonna drive to marina to dispose of their e-waste.

So what does that mean?

It goes in the garbage can.

If you live in a house, you can have three waste pickups per year.

I've checked on this.

If you live in an apartment, your apartment manager can get it no matter how many units you have, only three times a year unless they pay for it.

So I would like to see us, including in the negotiations, thing that might be related to our climate action goals, because as a region we have climate action goals, and it seems like this may also be an opportunity for us to reset some of the services that we get.

And I'm putting that out there since we have so many of you in the house now.

Um, so it might be a really good opportunity to be forward thinking about how we meet those new requirements because it's good for the community, it's good for the environment.

And another really big one.

I have to call out what Inga has been telling us for quite some time now, is not having options for people who don't have a lot of waste.

The fact that we are required to have one large bin, regardless of how little we use, is problematic for people for whom not only is that not efficient, um, but it also is a cost burden.

So I think that's something I would definitely want to see in a future contract.

So I figure this is a good forum to put that information out there on behalf of our community um so that we can look for that in future um RFPs that are submitted to us.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, uh thank you.

Um thank you for everyone that spoke.

Uh I agree with you on the uh that was gonna be my point was we do need to look at some kind of a program for folks that you know need some help.

Also being sensitive to the fact that gas is going up, you know, electricity's going up.

We've got people water is going up, so people are under a lot of price pressure.

Um, I think the fact that this is, you know, going to an RFP is not, you know, it's not a it's a serious matter because you we've already spent five hundred and thirty-four thousand dollars as the collective to get to this place, and then we have to go out to bid.

So um I take it really seriously, but I think we owe it to our citizens, um, to to provide that transparency to them and look for the best rate that we can, uh, maintaining the best service that we can.

And so at that point, I'm ready to make a motion.

If that's uh okay.

Absolutely.

Uh I recommend that we follow the staff's guidance and adopt a resolution, initiating a competitive request for proposal process for future solid waste recycling and organic collection services, and adopt the related process integrity policy.

Second.

Perfect.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Um, any further discussion?

Appreciate the comments, everyone.

Um okay, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Надо понимать.

Not the jitters here.

Okay.

How are we doing?

Are we good to proceed?

Okay.

Excellent.

Thank you so much, everybody.

We're back from the break.

It's eight sixteen PM.

May sixth, continuing the meeting.

And the final item of the night.

And this is the installation of a four-way stop at Congress Central and Lighthouse.

I think you can.

What you just did.

Maybe there we go.

Okay.

Good.

Because I worked a lot really hard on this presentation tonight.

I want you guys to see it in its fullest, alright?

Okay.

You got it.

Okay.

So tonight we're presenting to you the intersection of Congress Central and Lighthouse.

Um You guys directed the City Public Works Department to review this intersection for a potential stop sign.

So what are the current conditions?

This basically is the beginning of our downtown, right?

The lighthouse corridor, which runs between Cedar for the most part, and 13th Street.

And this corridor is 15 miles an hour.

The downtown really does have high visibility crosswalks at all the intersections.

So all the intersections have some form of treatment for pedestrians.

But the intersection does act like a four-way stop sign.

People get to it, they don't know what to do, kind of confused, they figure it out.

Okay, so our observations is that the mail drop creates potential conflicts.

So I think we can address that.

All the curb ramps at the intersection, though they are curbed cut, they are not conforming to current standards, but that's okay.

That's something we could address later.

And we do need to update signage and striping, regardless of what we do, we're gonna do here tonight.

Anyways, you saw on the report that we evaluated morning, midday, and evening traffic and pedestrian results.

The midday peak was the one that really struck out to me, stood out to me.

So between 11 a.m.

and 11 p.m.

And I don't have the date on this presentation, but I believe it's like a Tuesday in October.

We noted 1,200 vehicles through the intersection in a two-hour period.

225 pedestrians and 15 bicycles.

It's busy there, right?

Congress is busy, Central's busy on a Tuesday or Wednesday midweek.

The post office is busy, gas station, right?

Okay.

So then we took it to the traffic commission and we provided them some information.

The traffic commission noted that within a 12-month period, we had the five crashes.

That's what prompted the recommendation tonight.

The traffic commission also stated that there's unintended consequences at the current intersection as it is.

That's due to the queuing, such as like people stopping because they don't know what's going on, the heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic, which creates near misses.

But they've also stated that all of downtown has poor sight lines, and that's contributed to the angled parking and the backup parking that's associated with like next to the curb and the middle median, right?

Um the lanes are narrow and people are backing in and out.

Um, so they do state that a traffic or a downtown specific plan may be prudent, but that could be something that we do down the line, right?

So, what are the next steps is to advance.

If you give me direction tonight to move forward with a four-way stop, I'm not going and installing a four-way stop tomorrow, right?

We would put up our advanced warning signs, the big sign boards that say stop sign coming, right?

And maybe say like the beginning of June or some date, right?

June time frame.

We would then order the necessary infrastructure, and we already kind of have a layout that we could use for the installation, which was in the report and also in this PowerPoint, which I'll get to.

Um, so we those would be the next steps, right?

Order the signs.

That's all we would need to order.

We have everything else, and then put out the advanced warning sign so people don't know it's just coming, it just doesn't appear.

Miss Hallaby could put it on social media that it's coming.

Everybody would know, nobody's gonna come to the city council and say, I didn't know you were put a stop sign in, right?

Okay, so Traffic Commission motion for us to send this forward to the city council.

That's why we're here tonight to install four-way stop, but they also said to look at potential downtown specific plan in the future.

Okay, so here's the layout.

Um, as you approach, we would have all the 15 mile an hour signs on the ground, and then we would put up the stop signs through the turn lane.

Um, and then I think we could keep the post office box.

They removed the post office box on the eastbound lane, and I think that that was the bigger conflict.

I think the westbound lane has enough room.

Maybe we can get creative and put a sign up that says yield to traffic right there.

So you drop off your mail, you're yielding to traffic prior to entering that stop sign.

Cars are gonna slow down anyways because of the stop, so I don't think it will be a conflict.

I'd like to try it before we and observe before we relocate that mail drop-off box somewhere else.

That's not going to be as convenient for the postal user.

Okay, so the recommendation is tonight is to be turn the intersection into an always stop.

There's additional recommendations in the report.

I'm just hitting on those right now, which was the day lighting law.

We've already completed that, right?

So that's done.

We moved all the red curves 20 feet back.

We relocated that ADA spot that needed to occur regardless of what we were doing with the intersection.

We did that in fall of 2025.

Refresh all the markings and signage, we'll do that.

Um, we talked about the post office drop box and then develop a downtown specific plan, those are the other recommendations in the report.

If we do future work downtown, we might want to consider upgrading those curb ramps, but right now, if we're not gonna touch any concrete or asphalt, we're only doing paint and putting up some signs.

There's nothing I see that would trigger us to have to do those infrastructure upgrades at the present moment, but it would be nice to do a larger project there at some point.

And that concludes my report.

All right, thank you very much.

We'll go ahead and take it out to the public or comment on our final item item 13b, Sally.

I think this is a good idea.

We've needed it for many years.

I used to work in an office that was right where you go into toasties.

Believe me, I saw all sorts of action in that intersection.

So I'm hoping you can do it.

I know that there may be a problem with the mailbox, but I don't know if any of you have tried to drop anything in, but you have to pull out far enough that you can open your door and get out and put it in, and that complicates things as well.

So I'm hoping consider that.

And while you're considering four-way stops, how about forest and lighthouse?

That intersection is awful as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Nicholas Morlem.

I'm a resident here.

Um I want to speak in favor of the stop signs in your consideration.

I think this is really forward-thinking, and I really appreciate you considering it tonight.

Um, I wanted to speak out on this because I personally have actually almost been hit at that intersection, and it was actually so I have a five-year-old daughter, and actually, when she was two and a stroller, we were actually almost because we live up on park and walking down to Caledonia Park.

So I think this is gonna be a fantastic step in the direction of safety for our citizens, and I applaud you for considering it.

So thank you.

Thanks very much.

Thanks.

Online, yes, we have one caller online, Inga Lawrence and Diamond.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I've been supporting this all through the traffic and safety commission through years before that.

I agree with Sally Moore completely.

This has been a long time coming.

I think all of you know how often I sit at the post office gathering signatures for one petition or another over the years, and one of the problems is always that the 15 mile an hour is not respected, and they blow on through going west when from the post office, because they haven't been really doing the 15 miles an hour anyway.

And yes, Sally Moore's got it exactly right as far as that post office box now.

You have to get out of your car no matter if you have an SUV or a low car.

You've got to get out to put your mail into that box to even do it.

That's the post office.

Okay, that got switched.

Yes, there isn't one on the other side now, but it's the speed and going through, and I couldn't possibly as a disabled senior adult walk across that street at intersection now.

I tried it about two years ago and almost got run over.

So yes, this is absolutely needs to be done.

And the curb cuts, no, they've always been wrong from they when they were put in and we spent all that capital improvement funds on.

Um they haven't been utilized, they they are not.

They're not compliant, they're not whatever.

It's kind of like the Forest Avenue bull boats that we got that we had to take down again.

I mean, it's like ridiculous how things carry on and carry on.

Yes, we need a better downtown plan.

How long has that been in the making?

Well, let's do it.

Let's go ahead and forward think.

But yes, we need this four-way stop before then, and I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And I know for the hands are raised online, mayor.

All right.

Now bring it back.

Uh, we'll close public comment on the item.

Um, bring it back to the council.

The way I see this tonight is uh there are some aspirational items, and then there's the item that needs immediate action, and that is uh number one, what I would refer to as install all stop control and refresh uh payment mark as a signage.

So I'm definitely supportive of number one, and the aspirational items are time and budget uh issues as well.

So who else would like to who would like to speak?

Councilman Rao.

Thank you.

This is the first conversation that Mr.

Go and I had after I took office, and I am so happy to see this.

Uh I've been going through this intersection, um 39 years, and I think it's way overdoable, it's always been problematic, and it's probably the number two thing that people bring up to me about downtown.

I fully support getting this done and getting it done as soon as possible.

I think if you look at the um, I agree with the mayor that we've got some aspirational goals here, but if you look at the overhead, um if you look at the overhead slide, you will see how long that run is from passion fish to toasties and from the post office to the shell station, it's twice as big as it is from the post office to toasties and the shell station to passion fish, and so looking forward in that piece.

Uh Mr.

Go, I would also recommend that there be a pedestrian safe way safe zone.

I don't know what you call it, you've got a word for it.

But uh, we need to have a halfway point where people can stop and gather themselves and then move on to the next section.

But um, all of those I think are for the next conversation, but for this font conversation, um, I mean, I'm willing to make a motion.

I would go ahead and make a motion to get up for the discussion.

There's the staff to install the four-way stop at the intersection of lighthouse, Congress and Central and all associated actions consistent with the installation of the four-way stop.

Um, and an amended recommended amendment that we add to it and including refreshing all payment markings and signage, yeah.

Okay.

Then I'll second that.

And we have a motion and a second, no discussion, Councilmember Garfield.

Um, thank you.

I would like it.

Uh well, first of all, great.

We're moving this forward.

The letters we've received have been extremely positive about this important safety um improvement, um, and it's been very welcomed.

We've heard a few people talk about forest and lighthouse, and my understanding is that when you put in a stop sign, you start backing up traffic.

Um, and so it makes it harder for people to get out of parking places.

So the Forest and Lighthouse really needs to go to traffic commission to have a full study um of the the feasibility of it.

Um I do think that this particular uh intersection can anchor a corridor, a north-south corridor for improving the walkability of our city.

As we try to get in sidewalks, we want to have a destination, and as we've discovered going from up on park down to Caledonia, this is a this is a good destination.

Caledonia, the beach, all of that, and so this is a way of making that corridor a safe corridor, which then drives people to use it more so we can focus our improvements within that corridor instead of trying to do everything everywhere.

I do want to ask if in this particular instance, when you talk about the daylighting law, have you done that with the center parking as well as the side parking?

Because my impression is driving down lighthouse is that the diagonal parking in the center, uh, you can you can completely miss a pedestrian because of that the a big car in the center spot.

Um may not be appropriate to this particular conversation, but I think it's it it's something I'd like to know more about.

Um, but can you quickly review or briefly review the process that you all went through to get to the four-way stop?

Were other things considered?

Um, was this just well, let's just do the four-way stop.

In in the world of traffic, are there other alternative ways to make a safe intersection that were considered and then this turned out to be the best choice?

Sure.

Before I get to that, I don't think the daylighting law is applicable to the center median parking, because it's even though I see how it's uh could be for our downtown because of the uniqueness of us parking in that center median, it's for people that are on like the sidewalk stepping off the initial curb.

So there's not a car parked or truck parked right there that they can't see them crossing.

Now we're unique because of the trees and those like if somebody was already in the crosswalk, right?

You would see them.

But since we have those trees and those planters, that's our uniqueness.

So the daylight law isn't applicable to that center medium parking.

From my understanding, but if it's something the council would like us to review review, we could, but that would take away some parking in our downtown, which could be controversial as we all know.

To the intersection and your questions that you asked, we evaluated the intersection and all components associated with it.

The city council gave us very specific direction to evaluate that intersection for a four-way stop.

That was our primary goal with this.

I'm assuming you're talking about other treatments like in-roadway lighting or something that would trigger uh vehicle to realize there's a pedestrian in that walkway.

Um we didn't truly evaluate that, but I also don't think that's the theme here because what we're trying to do is get the people to stop and then recognize the 15 mile an hour zone.

And I think that that is what is going to the stop sign's going to do an in-roadway light systems not gonna work if there's no pedestrians there to slow and calm that traffic, but it it would assist a pedestrian crossing the roadway, but not like a stop sign.

Okay, so we didn't truly evaluate that.

I will tell you that to do a system this length across that sidewalk would probably be five to ten times more expensive than us being able to install the stop sign.

No, I really appreciate understanding the process better because it makes the end result um apparently the best thing to do, not just the quickest.

So thank you for sharing the process.

I appreciate it.

All right, let's go ahead and take the vote.

Would you like to speak?

Yeah, just uh a quick comment.

Uh first of all, Dan, uh thanks for the presentation.

Since you said you worked really hard, I did want to say that instead of updated signage and striping, you had updated signage and stripping.

So just FYI.

But what uh sorry, uh just pulling your leg.

The first version didn't have that, I'm sure.

But I I had a question, so so this is like uh, I mean, it's it's been there for a long time, right?

So we have the stop signs here, but can we also add just asking can we also add uh say on Congress Avenue saying stop sign ahead in advance of the stop sign?

There's already stop signs there, but if let me take a look and see if we're so yeah, everywhere possible if we because it's force of habit, right?

Like folks who already drive there probably are used to it.

So maybe saying something is coming ahead might might make sense.

So all the stop signs will have the emblem that says four-way underneath them, which they currently don't because it's not a four-way stop.

Okay, so like if you go to a four-way stop that your typical say four-way or all way underneath where those don't have that currently because it's just a two-way stop.

So those will get upgraded with that, and we will look at any roadway markings that enhance the safety.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we'll go ahead and uh take a voice vote.

Okay, all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Uh any opposed, hearing none.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you, Mr.

Go.

Appreciate it.

I didn't get a second on that.

Sorry.

Um, I was a second.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and it was uh number one plus additional whatever signage and markings on the roadway was the other part of it.

Striping, that's yes, striping.

All right, that's I think that's it.

That takes us to the end of the gender.

Thank you everyone for sticking around to the end.

And uh meeting is adjourned.

All right.