Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, January 18, 2022

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
and Zoom Teleconference
Cámara del Ayuntamiento
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
y teleconferencia por Zoom
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Agenda del Ayuntamiento
Reunión Ordinaria del
Ayuntamiento
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
Martes, 18 de enero de 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
City Council
Clyde Roberson, Mayor
Dan Albert, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember
Tyller Williamson, Councilmember
City Manager
Hans Uslar
Ayuntamiento
Clyde Roberson, alcalde
Dan Albert, concejal
Alan Haffa, concejal
Ed Smith, concejal
Tyller Williamson, concejal
Administrador Municipal
Hans Uslar
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Pursuant to California Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(A) and (C) and the Monterey City Council’s resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings of the Monterey City Council and its Boards, Commissions, and Committees are being conducted with a hybrid format providing both inperson and virtual (electronic) participation in order to promote social distancing and protect the health and safety of attendees.

Details for public participation in this City Council meeting:
 BEFORE THIS MEETING, members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages will not be read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments received become part of the record.
 DURING THIS MEETING, members of the public may attend and participate:
o In-person (location listed above), with masks required for all, regardless of vaccination status, except those who are younger than two years old or have a medical condition that prevents wearing a mask.
 Online via ZoomGov Webinar live (no time delay):
 Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333  Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, Calif.) or 646-828-7666 (New York, NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.
 Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.  Need more help or seeking guidance on making public comments? Read our ZoomGov Meeting Instructions.
 This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay).

AVISO IMPORTANTE: De conformidad con la sección 54953(e)(1)(A) y (C) del código de gobierno de California y con la resolución del ayuntamiento de Monterey por la que se autoriza la participación virtual en las reuniones públicas dada la pandemia de COVID-19, las reuniones del ayuntamiento de Monterey y de sus juntas, comisiones y comités se están llevando a cabo con un formato híbrido que proporciona una participación tanto presencial como virtual (electrónica) con el fin de promover el distanciamiento social y proteger la salud y la seguridad de los asistentes.
1/18/2022 4:00:00 PM
2 Detalles para la participación del público en esta reunión del ayuntamiento:
 ANTES DE ESTA REUNIÓN, Los miembros del público pueden enviar comentarios a [email protected] hasta media hora antes del comienzo de la reunión. Estos mensajes no se leerán en voz alta durante la reunión, pero se pondrán a disposición del ayuntamiento y del público en monterey.org/submitted-comments y en la oficina del administrador municipal en 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 durante el horario de trabajo. Todos los comentarios recibidos pasan a formar parte del acta.  DURANTE ESTA REUNIÓN, los miembros del público pueden asistir y participar:
o En persona (lugar indicado anteriormente), con mascarillas requeridas para todos, independientemente del estado de vacunación, excepto los menores de dos años o los que tengan una condición médica que impida el uso de una mascarilla.
 En línea a través de ZoomGov seminario web en directo (sin retraso):
 Únase desde una computadora o un teléfono inteligente:
https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333
 O únase por teléfono: Marque el 833-568-8864 (gratuito), el 669-254- 5252 (Campbell, California) o el 646-828-7666 (New York, NY). Si un número no funciona, pruebe con otro
 Introduzca el número de identificación del seminario web: 160 772 9333 #
 Si se le pide que introduzca un número de identificación de participante, presione #
 Para “levantar la mano” marque*9. Una vez que se le pida, marque *6 para silenciar.
 ¿Necesita más ayuda o busca orientación para hacer comentarios públicos? Lea instrucciones para la reunión ZoomGov.
o Esta reunión también se transmitirá en vivo para ver sólo en youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 segundos de retraso) y en Comcast, canal 25 (hasta 90 segundos de retraso).
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: Public Comments are taken during the afternoon session and continued at the evening session.

Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion. 1/18/2022 4:00:00 PM
3 Approval of Minutes

1. December 21, 2021 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Aprobación de Actas - 21 de diciembre de 2021 Reunión del Consejo Municipal de Monterey (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061)

2. January 4, 2022 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Aprobación de Actas - 24 de enero de 2022 Reunión del Consejo Municipal de Monterey (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061)
Award of Construction Contracts

3. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $385,200 to Precision Grade, Inc. for Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 5 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP/Measure S***

4. Award Construction Contract in the Amount of $695,200 to Sweetwater Construction, Inc. for Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022 (Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted per CEQA Guidelines) ***CIP*** Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."

5. Adopt a Resolution to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) and Member Agencies Regarding Compliance with SB 1383, Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $41,134 of General Fund Ending Balance to Contractual Services Account and Authorize the City to Participate in a Joint Application with the MRWMD for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for FY 2021-2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Approve the Annual Report for the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 as Prepared by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau Committee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Authorize City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with Monterey County to Extend the Agreement Through January 31, 2027 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***
1/18/2022 4:00:00 PM
4 PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held to receive public comment on certain items pending Council action. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time allocated to each speaker. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)

8. Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Substantial Amendment to the 2021/2022 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds, and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26)

PUBLIC APPEARANCE
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time each speaker is allocated.

9. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period January 19 through February 17, 2022 Pursuant to AB361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions, and Direct Staff to Conduct Meetings in a Teleconference-Only Remote Format (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

10. 1st Reading - Authorizing Amendment to the Contract between the City of Monterey and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System; and Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Monterey; and Resolution Modifying Certain Job Classification Titles for Temporary / Seasonal Part-time Positions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECESS 5:30 p.m.

RECONVENE

RECONVOCAR
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
7:00 - 11:00 p.m.

No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m. *** Agenda de la sesión nocturna ***
7:00 - 11:00 p.m.

No se iniciará ningún debate sobre un nuevo punto después de las 10:30 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held to receive public comment on certain items pending Council action. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the 1/18/2022 4:00:00 PM
5 Mayor. The Council may limit the time allocated to each speaker. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)
AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA
Las AUDIENCIAS PÚBLICAS se celebran para recibir los comentarios del público sobre ciertos temas que están pendientes de la acción del ayuntamiento. Se le invita a ofrecer sus comentarios después de ser reconocido por el alcalde. El ayuntamiento puede limitar el tiempo asignado a cada orador. AVISO SOBRE SUS DERECHOS LEGALES:

Si usted impugna la decisión de zonificación, planificación o uso de la tierra del ayuntamiento en un tribunal, puede estar limitado a plantear sólo las cuestiones que usted u otra persona planteó en la audiencia pública sobre el asunto, o en la correspondencia escrita entregada a la ciudad en el momento de la audiencia pública o antes de su cierre. (sección 65009(b) del código de gobierno)

11. Third Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts After Draft Map or Maps are Drawn and on the Potential Sequence of Elections for Staggered Terms of Office (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Tercera audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del público sobre la composición de los distritos de los concejales de la ciudad después de la elaboración del proyecto de mapa o mapas y sobre la posible secuencia de elecciones para mandatos alternados (no es un proyecto según la ley CEQA, artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: Public Comments are taken during the afternoon session and continued at the evening session.

Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification or make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any City matter (G.C. 54954.2).

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on his activities or a brief announcement. He may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

ADJOURNMENT
1/18/2022 4:00:00 PM
6 Members of the public have the right to address the City Council on any item on the Agenda, before or during its consideration [G.C. §54954.3(a)]. The Mayor will formally open the floor for public comment on items such as "Public Appearance" and "Public Hearings." Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours.

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.

City Council Meetings are cable cast live and recorded for replay on Monterey's Government Access Channel 25 by Access Media Productions (AMP).

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

Voicemail: (831) 646-3799
Fax: (831) 646-3793
Email: [email protected]
WebPage: http://www.monterey.org
INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings. Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance. Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communicationrelated assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Los miembros del público tienen derecho a dirigirse al ayuntamiento sobre cualquier punto de la agenda, antes o durante su consideración [G.C. §54954.3(a)]. El alcalde abrirá formalmente la palabra para los comentarios del público en puntos como “Comparecencia pública” y “audiencias públicas”.

Los escritos distribuidos para la discusión o consideración de estos asuntos dentro de las 72 horas anteriores a la reunión, de acuerdo con el código de gobierno § 54957.5, están disponibles en: monterey.org/submitted-comments y en la oficina del administrador municipal en 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 durante las horas regulares de trabajo.

La información distribuida al ayuntamiento en la reunión del mismo pasa a formar parte del registro público. A tal efecto, deberá facilitarse una copia del material escrito, fotografías, etc.

Las reuniones del ayuntamiento se retransmiten por cable en directo y se graban para su reproducción en el canal 25 de acceso al gobierno de Monterey por Access Media Productions (AMP).

LÍNEAS TELEFÓNICAS PARA SUGERENCIAS DE LA CIUDAD DE MONTEREY LAS 24 HORAS DEL DÍA:

Buzón de voz: (831) 646-3799
Fax: (831) 646-3793
1/18/2022 4:00:00 PM
7 Correo electrónico: [email protected]
Página web: http://www.monterey.org
INTERPRETACIÓN: El Consejo Municipal de Monterey invita y alienta la participación del público en sus reuniones. Se puede solicitar interpretación de idiomas comunicándose con el secretario de la ciudad a [email protected] o 831-646-3935. El secretario de la ciudad hará todo lo posible para adaptarse a las solicitudes de asistencia de interpretación. Las solicitudes deberían hacerse lo antes posible antes de cualquier reunión del Consejo Municipal. La Ciudad se compromete a atender las solicitudes de interpretación de idiomas con rapidez para maximizar la participación del público.

La ciudad de Monterey se compromete a incluir a los discapacitados en todos sus servicios, programas y actividades. En cumplimiento de la ley de estadounidenses con discapacidades, si necesita asistencia especial para participar en esta reunión, por favor póngase en contacto con la oficina de la secretaría municipal al (831) 646-3935. La notificación con 30 horas de antelación a la reunión permitirá a la ciudad hacer arreglos razonables para garantizar la accesibilidad a esta reunión [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA título II]. Las solicitudes posteriores serán atendidas en la medida de lo posible. Para obtener asistencia relacionada con la comunicación, marque el 711 para utilizar el Servicio de Retransmisión de California (CRS, por sus siglas en inglés) para hablar con las oficinas municipales.

El CRS ofrece servicios gratuitos de texto a voz, de voz a voz y en español las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana. Si necesita un dispositivo de amplificación de la audición para asistir a una reunión, marque el 711 para utilizar el CRS y hable con la oficina de la secretaría municipal al (831) 646-3935 para coordinar el uso de un dispositivo.

Las próximas reuniones municipales se encuentran en http://isearchmonterey.org Para obtener más información llame al (831) 646-3935

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, December 21, 2021
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Human Resources Director, City Clerk, Assistant Police Chief, Sports Center Manager, Operations Supervisor (MSC), Interim Recreation and Community Services Manager, Deputy Human Resources Manager
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C).

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.

City Clerk Klein called the roll, with the full Council present, with Mayor Roberson and Councilmembers Haffa and Williamson present by teleconference, and Councilmembers Albert and Smith present in the Council Chamber. She announced the rules for safety in the Council Chamber and informed the public how to join the Zoom teleconference.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements in 2021 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized Senior Police Services Technician Phillip Bitter (retired); and Operations Supervisor Tonya Hufford, Facility Coordinator Andrea Diallo, and Building Maintenance Craftsworker Juan Hernandez (20 year anniversaries) Assistant Police Chief Bruno made brief comments recognizing recently retired Senior Police Services Technician Bitter. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Parks and Recreation Director Larson, and Public Works Director Wittry briefly recognized Operations Supervisor Hufford (Monterey Conference Center), Facility Coordinator Diallo (Monterey Sports Center), and Building Maintenance Craftsworker Hernandez respectively, for their 20 years of service to the City. The Council thanked the retirees and staff.

Public comment was not received.

Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
2 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Nina Beety, Kathie Buaya, and Esther Malkin.

CONSENT ITEMS
Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS:

2. December 7, 2021 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Aprobación de Actas - 7 de diciembre de 2021 Reunión del Consejo Municipal de Monterey (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061) Action: Approved
Ordinances

3. 2nd Reading - Ordinance to Add Monterey City Code Chapter 9, Article 8, Section 9-76.1 to Prohibit Metal Detecting Activity on City Property That Was Part of the Former Fort Ord and Add Monterey City Code Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-25.6 to Make Entry on City Property Ordered Closed by the City Council or City Manager Unlawful (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15308, Class 8)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3645 C.S.

Resolutions

4. Appoint Councilmember Ed Smith as the Vice-Mayor for 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Appointed Councilmember Ed Smith as Vice-Mayor for 2022

5. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period December 22, 2021 through January 20, 2022 Pursuant to AB361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 21-130 C.S.

6. Approving the Application for Per Capita Grant Funds (Proposition 68) Managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute All Contract and Related Documents to Receive and Administer the Grant Funds. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 21-131 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
3 7. Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the Purchase of Four (4) 2022 Ford Police SUV Interceptors in the Amount of $182,398.08 and Four (4) Police Equipment Outfitting Packages in the Amount of $72,216.43(Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 21-132 C.S.

8. Amend Resolution 21-033 the Salary Schedule for Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time Positions and Weekly Camp Rates to Reflect Increases in State Minimum Wage Hourly Rates, Equity and Compaction Issues (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 21-133 C.S.
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

9. Appoint 2022 Representatives to Outside Agencies and City Committees (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Appointed representatives as presented in the Council packet, with the following amendments: appointment of Councilmember Albert as alternate to Community Human Services and appointment of staff members to TAMC's Technical Advisory Committee as follows: Traffic Engineering Assistant Garcia as representative, Traffic Engineer Andrea Renny as 1st alternate, and Senior Associate Planner Roveri as 2nd alternate Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who urged that the Council appoint a new representative to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), citing a need for diversity of representation on affordable housing matters.

The Council discussed the appointments. It was stated that the representative's voting record at AMBAG is publicly available, as is the case with other boards, and that the reppresentative has endorsed housing however and whenever possible. It was stated that it would be helpful to have an alternate appointed to Community Human Services, and Councilmember Albert volunteered to serve as the allternate. City Clerk Klein noted that an edit to the staff representation to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County Technical Advisory Committee had been requested by the Public Works Department.

On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council appointed representatives as presented in the Council packet, with the following amendments: appointment of Councilmember Albert as alternate to Community Human Services and appointment of staff members to TAMC's Technical Advisory Committee as follows: Traffic Engineering Assistant Garcia as representative, Traffic Engineer Andrea Renny as 1st alternate, and Senior Associate Planner Roveri as 2nd alternate:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
4 10. Direction to Staff to Develop a Regulatory Ordinance that Allows Three Retail Cannabis Permits in the City and Receive an Update on Step 3 Elements of the Commercial Cannabis Roadmap (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Directed staff to:
• Develop regulations allowing no more than three (3) retail permits (one each in Downtown, Lighthouse, and Cannery Row), prepare documents and efforts to regulate three cannabis retail businesses (operating or development agreement) and to research and come back to Council to consider placing a cannabis retail tax on the ballot for Monterey voters to consider in November 2022 (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no); and
• Bring back for discussion the consideration of cannabis events at the Fairground after the cannabis retail permitting process is complete (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no) Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation, asking the Council to direct staff to prepare documents and efforts to regulate three cannabis retail businesses and to place a cannabis retail tax on the ballot for Monterey voters to consider in November 2022, and to consider cannabis events at the Monterey County Fairgrounds after cannabis retailers are in operation. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Community Development Director Cole, and City Manager Uslar answered Councilmembers' questions.

Mark Lovelace, HdL, addressed questions on the different types of taxes and tax measures and stated that cannabis general taxes are generally very successful.

Public comment was received from Sal Palma, Higher Level, who spoke in favor of the staff recommendations; Edwin Gonzales, who spoke in favor of the Lighthouse area as a location for cannabis retail; Jennifer Hewlett, Synchronicity Holistic, who spoke in favor of the proposed locations; Jhonrico Carr, who urged the City to designate one of the three licenses to him as a form of restitution and to create a social equity program; Esther Malkin, who expressed concern about taxes and about dangers associated with the cannabis black market; Robert Roach, who asked the Council to reconsider the staff recommendation to put cannabis events on hold; and Kelly Violini, who said that the Fair looks forward to working with the City.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that each individual Request for Proposals (RFP) for cannabis licenses will need to come to the Council for review and approval. General support for the recommended locations was indicated, including the potential for more than one in an individual area if any such proposals make sense. It was stated that the amount of revenue that could flow into the City from cannabis events could make it worthwhile to move forward with approving such events, and that such events are heavily regulated by the State.

Citing lost revenue associated with deliveries, it was requested that staff expedite the cannabis program in general. It was stated that the City of Monterey should not rent its properties to cannabis businesses. It was urged that any approved proposals must include a submitted public safety site plan. It was stated that there will be at least one "no" vote to any motion approving moving forward with allowing cannabis in the City. It was stressed that the staff is already overloaded. It was requested to understand further how the North Fremont neighborhood feels about cannabis retail.

On question, City Manager Uslar clarified that staff does not currently have capacity to take on the matter of cannabis events; he explained that the North Fremont area was not included in staff's recommendation due to concerns about saturation in the nearby Seaside and Del Rey Oaks cannabis markets.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
5 It was stated by Council that there is interest in pursuing the concept of a social equity program.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Mayor Roberson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council directed staff to develop regulations allowing no more than three (3) retail permits (one each in Downtown, Lighthouse, and Cannery Row), prepare documents and efforts to regulate three cannabis retail businesses (operating or development agreement) and to research and come back to Council to consider placing a cannabis retail tax on the ballot for Monterey voters to consider in November 2022:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Mayor Roberson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council directed staff to bring back for discussion the consideration of cannabis events at the Fairground after the cannabis retail permitting process is complete:

RECONVENE
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with the full Council present: Councilmember Albert in the Council Chamber, and Mayor Roberson and Councilmembers Haffa, Smith, and Williamson present via Zoom teleconference.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)

11. Second Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts Before Drawing a Draft Map or Maps (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Segunda audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del público sobre la composición de los concejales municipales por distrito antes de elaborar un borrador de mapa o mapas (no es un proyecto de acuerdo con la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
Action: Conducted public hearing and received community input regarding the composition of City Councilmember districts
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
6 Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation, sharing with the Council and the public the steps that have been taken so far by the City and that are planned for the future based on the established districting process timeline. Liz Stitt, Redistricting Partners, contributed to the presentation, providing an overview of draft districting maps submitted to date by members of the public and encouraging the public to continue to submit district boundary ideas and communities of interest information.

On question, Liz Stitt, Redistricting Partners, clarified how demographers find information about where renters live in the City.

Public comment was received from: Jean Rasch, Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, who endorsed the draft map that was submitted by Scott Hanson, citing representation of Monterey's renters; Tom Rowley, who said it is too early to comment on specific maps from the public until the demographers compile the information received and give their professional proposals, and stressed to the demographers that the City's existing neighborhoods are communities of interest; Curt Tipton, Downtown Neighborhood Association, who urged the Council to request a delay of the districting until after the holidays, and said that areas that will be affected by sea level rise should be considered a community of interest; Esther Malkin, who said that there should be a way to level the playing field when it comes to Council owning rental properties and voting on issues that affect renters, and expressed the concern that renters will not be in a position to run for the Council; Richard Ruccello, who expressed that roads should be considered in the creation of draft maps and not split unduly across districts because of the layout of census blocks; and Pat Venza, who asked whether LULAC will have input on the final map proposals, and stressed that Latino voters are a community of interest.

Responding to a question from the public, City Manager Uslar said that demographic information including data relating to race will be provided along with draft maps when the demographer has prepared their proposed three or four draft maps.

Responding to a question from the public, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira explained that the community mapping tools were intended to be broader but that the draft maps prepared by the demographers will be much more detailed. He confirmed that Redistricting Partners understands the neighborhoods' importance in Monterey and is considering them when looking at communities of interest. Liz Stitt, Redistricting Partners, said that at the next public hearing, she will present demographic trends to the Council and the public.

Gratitude was expressed by the Council about the time and energy that the public has spent to prepare the draft maps that they submitted.

12. Deny 2101 North Fremont Street Application AP-21-0194 Appealing Planning Commission Decision to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve Use Permit UP-20-0227 to Redevelop an Existing 18-Room Hotel, Restaurant and Parking Lot Site with a New 42-Room Hotel and Parking Lot, and Off-Street Loading Space (MCC38-115 Schedule B and MCC 38- 117); Appellant Derric G. Oliver, Fenton & Keller, on behalf of Mahroom Family; Applicant Adriana Cook, Arriss Studio Architects; Owner Lakshmi Hotel Partners; PC-NF Zoning District; Commercial Land Use Designation
Action: Tabled
City Manager Uslar stated that additional written material was received on in the previous few days from the appellant, and that City staff has changed their recommendation to ask the Council to table the item.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
7 Public comment was received from Anthony Lombardo, who said that the written comment received at the last moment was impossible to analyze in the time available before the meeting.

He requested that the Council table the application until a thorough and complete response can be made.

On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council tabled the matter:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

13. City Manager’s Update on COVID-19 Response Efforts (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Received update
City Manager Uslar gave an update about the status of the COVID-19 pandemic, the current mask mandate, the Omicron variant, and tourism in Monterey.

Public comment was not received.

On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar stated that currently two fully vaccinated employees have tested positive for COVID-19.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Williamson shared a personal message of gratitude to the City staff across all departments.

Councilmember Haffa wished the community happy and safe holidays. He encouraged everyone to give charitable donations through Monterey County Gives to receive the benefit of matching funds.

Councilmember Smith wished the community a Merry Christmas and happy New Year, and thanked them for their involvement in the City.

Councilmember Albert echoed praise to City staff and thanked them for their hard work during a difficult year. He said that he attended the Old Monterey Business Association's and Monterey County Hospitality Association's holiday luncheons and congratulated the businesses that have stuck it out during the pandemic. He encouraged the public to get tested for COVID-19 regularly as needed to keep those around them safe.

Mayor Roberson noted his written summary of the Water Management District meeting that was attached to the Council packet. He said that Monterey's neighborhood associations were submitted as communities of interest to the Water Management District's redistricting process.

He thanked the City staff and the Marriott for the recent employee luncheon. He read a poem called "One Wish" and wished everyone peace.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes December 21, 2021
8 14. Written Report from Mayor Roberson Regarding December 13, 2021 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received report

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Jean Rasch and Morgan IvensDuran. Esther Malkin began to speak but had already spoken on non-agendized matters in the afternoon session.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar reported that City staff has been working on providing the data that Council requested at the September study sessoin, regarding rental units in the City. He announced the upcoming holiday dinner drive-through on Thursday, December 23, organized together with the Monterey County Food Bank and the Kiwanis. He said that Monterey County Gives is an opportunity to donate to the Monterey Public Library, and that the Library has already received $38,000. He thanked the Council for their fairness and hard work on behalf of the City.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 15 Reunión del Ayuntamiento de Monterey el 21 de diciembre de 2021 Extracto de las actas – Traducido al español

11. Segunda audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del público sobre la composición de los concejales municipales por distrito antes de elaborar un borrador de mapa o mapas (no es un proyecto de acuerdo con la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
Acción: Se realizó una audiencia pública y se recibieron comentarios de la comunidad con respecto a la composición de los distritos de los concejales de la Ciudad El asistente del administrador de la ciudad, Rojanasathira, hizo la presentación del personal, compartiendo con el Consejo y el público los pasos que se han tomado hasta ahora por la ciudad y que están planificados para el futuro basándose en el cronograma establecido para el proceso de distribución de distritos. Liz Stitt, de Redistricting Partners, contribuyó a la presentación, brindando una descripción general de los mapas preliminares de distritos presentados hasta la fecha por miembros del público y alentando al público a continuar enviando ideas sobre los límites de los distritos e información sobre comunidades de interés.

En respuesta a la pregunta, Liz Stitt, de Redistricting Partners, aclaró cómo los demógrafos encuentran información sobre dónde viven los arrendatarios en la ciudad.

Se recibieron comentarios públicos de: Jean Rasch, de Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, quien respaldó el mapa preliminar que fue presentado por Scott Hanson, citando la representación de los arrendatarios de Monterey; Tom Rowley, quien dijo que es demasiado pronto para comentar sobre mapas específicos del público hasta que los demógrafos recopilen la información recibida y den sus propuestas profesionales, y enfatizó a los demógrafos que los vecindarios existentes en la Ciudad son comunidades de interés; Curt Tipton, Downtown Neighborhood Association, quien instó al Consejo a solicitar una demora de la distribución de distritos hasta después de las fiestas, y dijo que las áreas que se verán afectadas por el aumento del nivel del mar deberían considerarse una comunidad de interés; Esther Malkin, quien dijo que debería haber una manera de nivelar el campo de juego cuando se trata de que el Consejo sea propietario de propiedades de alquiler y vote sobre asuntos que afectan a los arrendatarios, y expresó la preocupación de que los arrendatarios no estén en condiciones de postularse para el Consejo; Richard Ruccello, quien expresó que las carreteras deben considerarse en la creación de mapas preliminares y no dividirse indebidamente entre distritos debido a la disposición de los bloques censales; y Pat Venza, quien preguntó si LULAC participará en las propuestas finales del mapa y enfatizó que los votantes latinos son una comunidad de interés.

Respondiendo a una pregunta del público, el administrador de la ciudad Uslar dijo que la información demográfica, incluidos los datos relacionados con la raza, se proporcionará junto con los mapas preliminares cuando el demógrafo haya preparado los tres o cuatro mapas preliminares propuestos.

Respondiendo a una pregunta del público, el asistente del administrador de la ciudad, Rojanasathira, explicó que las herramientas de mapeo de la comunidad estaban destinadas a ser más amplias, pero que los mapas preliminares preparados por los demógrafos serán mucho más detallados. Confirmó que Redistricting Partners comprende la importancia de los vecindarios en Monterey y los está considerando al buscar comunidades de interés. Liz Stitt, de Redistricting Partners, dijo que en la próxima audiencia pública, presentará las tendencias demográficas al Consejo y al público.

El Consejo expresó su gratitud por el tiempo y la energía que el público ha dedicado a preparar los mapas preliminares que presentaron.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 9, Packet Page 16

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, January 4, 2022
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Library Director, City Clerk, Deputy Human Resources Manager ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually, and the safety rules for attendance in the Council Chamber. She called the roll, with Councilmembers Albert, Haffa, and Smith and Mayor Roberson present by teleconference, and Councilmember Williamson absent.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Lorna Moffat.

Mayor Roberson noted to the public that comment on non-agendized matters may be made in the afternoon session or the evening session, but not both. *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session was not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 4:13 p.m.

RECESS

RECONVENE
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmember Albert, Haffa, and Smith, and Mayor Roberson present by Zoom teleconference, and Councilmember Williamson absent.

Councilmember Williamson joined the meeting at 7:05 p.m.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

1. Third Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts After Draft Map or Maps are Drawn and on the Potential Sequence of Elections for Staggered Terms of Office (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Tercera audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes January 4, 2022
2 público sobre la composición de los distritos de los concejales de la ciudad después de la elaboración del proyecto de mapa o mapas y sobre la posible secuencia de elecciones para mandatos alternados (no es un proyecto según la ley CEQA, artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general) Action: Received public feedback
City Manager Uslar explained that due to a clerical error in the public hearing notice, this meeting would not be an official public hearing, and that the public hearing would be noticed and held on January 18, 2022.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira noted that LULAC had verbally agreed to a one-day extension to the districting timeline to allow the public hearing to be held on January 18, 2022.

He gave the staff presentation together with Paul Mitchell, Districting Partners, the City's demographer for this districting process. Mr. Mitchell explained to the Council how the four draft maps were developed. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and Mr. Mitchell went through the draft maps in detail, going through the statistical and demographic details and the exact layout of the various draft district lines. They discussed factors that should be considered when determining the sequence of elections associated with the districts. Together, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and Mr. Mitchell answered Councilmembers' questions.

On question, City Attorney Davi clarified that the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) will not be changed by the City Council's move to district-based elections.

Public comment was received from: Zoe Carter, who spoke in favor of the “Cuttlefish” draft map; Robert Yoha, who asked that the Casanova-Oak Knoll neighborhood not be split and spoke in support of the “Bat Ray” draft map; Jean Rasch, Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA), who spoke in favor of the “Cuttlefish” draft map and said that the MVNA board has expressed irritation with the districting process overall; Esther Malkin, Monterey County Renters United, who said that renters should receive consideration when it comes to election sequencing and be up for election first, and said that New Monterey and Villa Del Monte have the most density and therefore the highest number of renters; Rick Heuer, who shared reasons why he questions whether renters are in fact a community of interest, and spoke in favor of the “Cuttlefish” and “Dolphin” draft maps; Bruce Zanetta, who said that numbers appear to be the focus in the districting process and that history and culture are not being considered; Ann, who urged the Council to consider adopting the “Dolphin” draft map; Richard Ruccello, who spoke about the demographics in the Casanova-Oak Knoll neighborhood and spoke in favor of the “Dolphin” draft map; Tom Rowley, Fishermans Flats Neighborhood Association (FFNA), who said that the FFNA was in favor of the “Cuttlefish” draft map due to compactness and contiguity; John Sovereign, who asked the Council to reject district-based elections; and Luis Osorio, who spoke about the concept of communities of interest, and said that renters have been a historically misrepresented group.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the “Bat Ray” draft map creates at least one non-compact, non-cohesive district. It was stated that it’s clear that the community at large is not excited about this districting process, and that it is important for them to understand that the Council is moving to district-based elections out of necessity to avoid a "legal hammer."

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Zoe Carter.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes January 4, 2022
3 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Davi reported:
cs1. 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Allyson Hauck and Gina Russo; General Employees of Monterey (GEM), Management Employees' Association (MEA), Police Lieutenants' Management Association (PLMA), Monterey Fire Chief Officers' Association (MFCOA), Monterey Police Association (MPA), Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA) Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a roll call vote of 4-0-1 (Councilmember Williamson absent), the Council gave confidential direction to its labor negotiators

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Smith said that his time as chair of the board of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) has ended, and he thanked the TAMC staff and community members.

Mayor Roberson reported favorably on the Monterey Pops concert at First Night Monterey.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar said that the Monterey Fire Department broke its vaccination records at First Night Monterey. He urged all to wear protective masks and explained that cloth masks don't properly protect against the Omicron variant.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 9:04 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 19 Reunión del Ayuntamiento de Monterey el 4 de enero de 2022 Extracto de las actas – Traducido al español

1. Tercera audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del público sobre la composición de los distritos de los concejales de la ciudad después de la elaboración del proyecto de mapa o mapas y sobre la posible secuencia de elecciones para mandatos alternados (no es un proyecto según la ley CEQA, artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
Acción: Comentarios del público recibidos
El administrador de la ciudad, Uslar, explicó que debido a un error administrativo en el aviso de la audiencia pública, esta reunión no sería una audiencia pública oficial y que la audiencia pública se notificaría y celebraría el 18 de enero de 2022.

El administrador adjunto de la ciudad, Rojanasathira, señaló que LULAC había acordado verbalmente una extensión de un día al cronograma de la determinación de distritos para permitir que la audiencia pública se llevara a cabo el 18 de enero de 2022. Hizo la presentación del personal junto con Paul Mitchell, Districting Partners, el demógrafo de la ciudad para este proceso de determinación de distritos. El Sr. Mitchell explicó al Consejo cómo se desarrollaron los cuatro mapas preliminares. El administrador adjunto de la ciudad, Rojanasathira, y el Sr.

Mitchell revisaron los mapas preliminares en detalle, analizando los detalles estadísticos y demográficos y el diseño exacto de las diversas líneas preliminares de los distritos. Discutieron los factores que deben ser considerados al determinar la secuencia de elecciones asociadas con los distritos. Juntos, el administrador adjunto de la ciudad, Rojanasathira, y el Sr. Mitchell respondieron las preguntas de los concejales.

En respuesta a la pregunta, el abogado de la ciudad, Davi, aclaró que el Programa de Mejoramiento de Vecindarios y Comunidades (NCIP, por sus siglas en inglés) no cambiará con el cambio del Consejo Municipal a elecciones distritales.

Se recibieron comentarios públicos de: Zoe Carter, quien habló a favor del mapa preliminar “Cuttlefish”; Robert Yoha, quien pidió que el vecindario Casanova-Oak Knoll no se dividiera y habló a favor del mapa preliminar “Bat Ray”; Jean Rasch, de la Asociación de Vecinos de Monterey Vista (MVNA), quien habló a favor del mapa preliminar “Cuttlefish” y dijo que la junta de la MVNA ha expresado su irritación con el proceso de creación de distritos en general; Esther Malkin, de Renters United del condado de Monterey, quien dijo que los inquilinos deben recibir consideración cuando se trata de la secuencia de elecciones y ser los primeros en presentarse a las elecciones, y dijo que New Monterey y Villa Del Monte tienen la mayor densidad y, por lo tanto, la mayor cantidad de inquilinos; Rick Heuer, quien compartió las razones por las que cuestiona si los inquilinos son de hecho una comunidad de interés, y habló a favor de los mapas preliminares “Cuttlefish” y “Dolphin”; Bruce Zanetta, quien dijo que los números parecen ser el enfoque en el proceso de creación de distritos y que la historia y la cultura no se están considerando; Ann, quien instó al Consejo a considerar la adopción del mapa preliminar “Dolphin”; Richard Ruccello, quien habló sobre la demografía en el vecindario de Casanova-Oak Knoll y se pronunció a favor del mapa preliminar “Dolphin”; Tom Rowley, de la Asociación de Vecinos de Fishermans Flats (FFNA), quien dijo que la FFNA estaba a favor del mapa preliminar “Cuttlefish” debido a su compacidad y contigüidad; John Sovereign, quien le pidió al Consejo que rechazara las elecciones distritales; y Luis Osorio, quien habló sobre el concepto de comunidades de interés, y dijo que los inquilinos han sido un grupo históricamente mal representado.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 20 El Consejo discutió el asunto. Se afirmó que el mapa preliminar “Bat Ray” crea al menos un distrito no compacto y no cohesivo. Se afirmó que está claro que la comunidad en general no está entusiasmada con este proceso de distribución de distritos y que es importante que entiendan que el Consejo se está moviendo hacia elecciones distritales por necesidad, para evitar problemas legales graves.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 21 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Steve Wittry, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Thomas M. Korman, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $385,200 to Precision Grade, Inc. for Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 5 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP/Measure S***
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 5 (“Project”) and granting the City Engineer, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $385,200;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Vision and Strategic Initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents” by maintaining our existing infrastructure. This action also is consistent with past City Council actions authorizing the expenditure of funds to repair sidewalks throughout the City as part of the Capital Improvement Program, including Measure S.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This project would be funded through Measure P, the ½-cent Sales Tax measure adopted by Monterey voters to fund streets and storm drain projects in the community.

Nine (9) bids were received and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on November 16, 2021.

Bidder Grand Total* Base Bid
Precision Grade, Inc., San Juan Bautista, CA $ 403,865.00 $ 385,200.00 Norcal Contractor, Salinas, CA $ 455,181.49 $ 438,526.28 ASG Builders, San Francisco, CA $ 459,389.00 $ 442,735.00 FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc., Livermore, CA $ 464,198.00 $ 450,776.00 Monterey Peninsula Engineering, Marina, CA $ 529,018.00 $ 498,338.00 McKim Corporation, Gilroy, CA $ 530,663.92 $ 508,693.92 Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 22 Graniterock, San Jose, CA $ 535,097.00 $ 523,476.00
The Don Chapin Company, Inc., Salinas, CA $ 541,560.00 $ 516,785.00 Granite Construction Company, Watsonville, CA $ 739,863.00 $ 708,418.00 Engineer’s Estimate $ 475,000.00
The basis of award for the project was the Grand Total* (Base Bid plus Additive Alternative Bid Schedule No. 1). According to the project bid documents, the City reserves the right to award, in addition to the base bid, any, all or none of the additive alternate bid schedules. Based on the Grand Total, at the time of bid opening, the apparent low bidder was Precision Grade, Inc.

Based on an internal review of the bids, staff recommends award of the Base Bid only, which was $385,200.

Total Project Construction Estimate:

Construction Contract (Total Base Bid) $ 385,200.00
Construction Contingency, 15% $ 57,780.00
Total Project Construction Estimate (This Authorization) $ 442,980.00 Construction Management and Inspection (Staff) $ 30,000 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $ 472,980.00 Funding Sources:

Measure P – ADA Upgrades (35c1555) $ 3,017,224.54
As of December 13, 2021, sufficient funding is available to complete the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Categorical Exemption:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project would involve the removal and replacement of existing concrete, recompacting the existing subgrade, and replacing these areas with new concrete.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 23 significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project proposes the removal and replacement of existing concrete, recompacting the existing subgrade, and replacing these areas with new concrete; therefore, no new expansion will take place.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to the improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed improvements are at grade and would replace pavement in-kind; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways will occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impacts to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code would occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The proposed project would not require digging. The work would be confined to the public right-ofway; there would be no impacts to any historic structures. The proposed improvements would remove and replace existing pavement sections by grinding 6” (or less) in depth – no digging.

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would not occur.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this project; however, the proposed project implements maintenance activities that are required to maintain existing infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

This project consists of the removal and replacement of curb ramps at various intersections throughout the City of Monterey that have been identified as the responsibility of the City, consistent with Chapter 32, Article 4, of the City Code. Curb ramps provide accessible routes that people with disabilities can use to safely transition from a roadway to a curbed sidewalk and vice versa. The project is the fifth in a series of planned curb ramp replacement construction contracts funded by Measure S, the one (1) percent Sales Tax measure adopted by Monterey voters in November 2018 to fund street, sidewalk, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure projects.

The project plans and specifications were developed by City staff and extensively advertised for construction bids. On November 16, 2021, the City received nine (9) bids. The lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by Precision Grade, Inc., with a total bid in the amount of $403,865.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 24 The project scope of work includes the construction of a total of sixteen curb ramps, all located in the New Monterey neighborhood. The majority of work will be performed at the following intersections: Hawthorne & Reeside, Hawthorne & Drake, Laine & Dickman, David & Lily, and Withers & Lily. The additive alternate included an underground french drain system located at the intersection of Hawthorne and Reeside. Upon review the bids received for the additive alternate, the results of a cost evaluation yielded that the additive alternate was cost effective and therefore is not recommended for award.

Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $385,200;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

TK/ah
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Precision Grade, Inc., San Juan Bautista, CA
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 25 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $385,200 TO PRECISION GRADE, INC. FOR CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT, PHASE 5
***CIP/MEASURE S***
WHEREAS, on the 16th day of November 2021, at 2:00 pm the City of Monterey received nine (9) bids for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 5 (“Project”); WHEREAS, Precision Grade Inc., Norcal Contractor, ASG Builders, FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc., Monterey Peninsula Engineering, McKim Corporation, Graniterock, The Don Chapin Company, and Granite Construction Company, submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHEREAS, Precision Grande, Inc. of San Juan Bautista, CA submitted the lowest, responsive, responsible Grand Total Bid in the amount of $403,865; WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Grand Total* (Base Bid plus Additive Alternative Bid Schedule No. 1) and according to the project bid documents, the City reserves the right to award, in addition to the base bid, any, all or none of the additive alternate bid schedules, therefore, based on the Grand Total, at the time of bid opening, the apparent low bidder was Precision Grade, Inc., and based on an internal review of the bids, staff recommends award of the Base Bid only, in the amount of $385,200; WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in account 35c1555 to complete the work; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project would involve the removal and replacement of existing concrete, recompacting the existing subgrade, and replacing these areas with new concrete. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project proposes the removal and replacement of existing concrete, recompacting the existing subgrade, and replacing these areas with new concrete; therefore, no new expansion will take place.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 26 2 Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to the improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would not occur.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Approves the plans and specifications for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 5 (“Project”) and grants the City Engineer, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awards a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $385,200;

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and

5. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 27 3 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 28 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Steve Wittry, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Prepared By: Max Rieser, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract in the Amount of $695,200 to Sweetwater Construction, Inc. for Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022 (Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted per CEQA Guidelines) ***CIP*** RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022 (“Project”) which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a construction contract for the Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of $695,200;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 20% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The action is consistent with the following Council value drivers: “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents;” “Providing the City of Monterey with multiple modes of transportation that are safe, efficient and effective;” and “Appropriately preserve, promote, and maintain our historic, cultural, and environmental assets”.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On June 18, 2019, the City Council passed resolution 19-116 approving the creation of CIP 2001. The project is funded entirely with Tidelands Funds. Tidelands Funds are restricted in use as they can only be used within specific parameters. One of the authorized uses is to address and maintain wharf infrastructure. This project is intended to perform maintenance at both Wharf #1 and Wharf #2.

Four (4) bids were received and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on December 21, 2021 as follows:

Bidder Base Bid
Sweetwater Construction, Inc., Vallejo, CA $ 695,200
Ballard Marine Construction, LLC, Washougal, WA $ 703,530 Granite Rock Company, Watsonville, CA $ 904,690
Power Engineering Construction Co, Alameda, CA $ 823,900 Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 29 The basis of award for the project was the Base Bid. Based on the Base Bid, at the time of bid opening, the apparent low bidder was Sweetwater Construction, Inc.

Total Project Construction Estimate:

Construction Contract (Base Bid) $ 695,200
Construction Contingency, 20% $ 139,040
Total Project Construction Estimate (This Authorization) $ 834,240 Construction Management and Inspection (Staff) $ 40,000 Materials Testing
Environmental Support Services
$ 20,000
$ 50,000
Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $944,240
Funding Sources:

Programmatic Wharf Repairs (CIP2001) $1,225,933
As of December 22, 2021, sufficient funding in the Tidelands fund is available to complete the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Monterey City Council on January 21, 2020 for Municipal Wharves I and II Structural Maintenance. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15072; a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from April 24, 2019 to May 27, 2019 (CEQA Section 15073), during which all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City's website. The IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources; mitigation measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. No comment letters were received during the public review period, but two comment letters were received after its conclusions: 1. California Coastal Commission on June 14, 2019, and 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife on July 5, 2019. The letters provided comments regarding public access, duration and time of construction activities, sensitive biological resources, and water quality, to which response letters were provided.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for the Project; however, this is not recommended as the Project implements maintenance and reconstruction activities that are necessary to maintain existing public infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

This project consists of repairing and replacing wharf structural elements on Fisherman’s Wharf and Municipal Wharf II, including but not limited to, timber pile installation, timber pile repairs (sleeves and friction collars), cap beams, stringers, post beams, concrete base and all Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 30 associated connections, and demolishing and replacing asphalt and decking structures. The project is scheduled to commence in early 2022 and be completed by Memorial Day 2022.

The project is part of an ongoing maintenance program whereby the City intends on performing routine maintenance at the wharves. Due to extensive permitting issues, staff plans on performing this kind of work every three years.

Tidelands funds are the exclusive funding source for this effort.

The project plans and specifications were developed by COWI North America, Inc. and City staff and extensively advertised for construction bids and are available for public review in the office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific St., Room 7).

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021, the City received four (4) bids. The basis of award for the project was the Base Bid. The lowest responsive, responsible Base Bid was submitted by Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of $695,200.

Due to the nature of the underwater work, staff is requesting approval of 20% contingency for this project. This will allow staff to quickly implement necessary changes to the work as may be required to address unknown or ‘hidden’ structural issues.

Staff recommends award of the Base Bid. References have been checked for Sweetwater Construction, Inc., and staff is confident in the contractor’s ability to perform the work successfully.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a construction contract for the Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of $695,200;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 20% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

MR/ss
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Brian Nelson, Interim Harbormaster
COWI North America, Inc.

Sweetwater Construction, Inc.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 31 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $695,200 TO SWEETWATER CONSTRUCTION, INC FOR MUNICIPAL WHARVES STRUCTURAL REPAIRS FY 2021/2022 ***CIP***
WHEREAS, on the 21st day of December 2021, at 2:00 pm, the City received four (4) bids for the Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022 (“Project”); WHEREAS, Sweetwater Construction, Inc, Ballard Marine Construction, LLC, Granite Rock Company, and Power Engineering Construction Co, submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHEREAS, Sweetwater Construction, submitted the lowest, responsive, responsible Base Bid in the amount of $695,200;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in account CIP2001 to complete the work; WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for the project were available for review prior to approval in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Monterey City Council on January 21, 2020 for Municipal Wharves I and II Structural Maintenance. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15072; a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from April 24, 2019 to May 27, 2019 (CEQA Section 15073), during which all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City's website. The IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources; mitigation measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. No comment letters were received during the public review period, but two comment letters were received after its conclusions: 1. California Coastal Commission on June 14, 2019, and 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife on July 5, 2019. The letters provided comments regarding public access, duration and time of construction activities, sensitive biological resources, and water quality, to which response letters were provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Approves the plans and specifications for the Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022 (“Project”) which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and grants the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 32 2 3. Awards a construction contract for the Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of $695,200;

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

5. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 20% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 33 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) and Member Agencies Regarding Compliance with Senate Bill 1383, Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $41,134 of General Fund Ending Balance to Contractual Services Account and Authorize the City to Participate in a Joint Application with the MRWMD for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for FY 2021-2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the MOU between the MRWMD and member agencies regarding compliance with SB 1383, authorize the Finance Director to appropriate $41,134 of General Fund ending balance to contractual services account 101-400-4400-4200 and authorize the City to participate in a joint application with the MRWMD for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for FY 2021-2022.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City will be required to comply with the regulations established by SB 1383 relating to short lived climate pollutants adopted in 2020. As a result, the program implementation, monitoring, tracking, public outreach and reporting to the State will be responsibilities assigned to the City.

While the City could work to address these responsibilities on its own, collaborating with the other jurisdictions in the region facing the same regulatory requirements offers a potentially more efficient and cost effective response.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The MRWMD estimates that the total MOU implementation cost for FY2021-2022 will be $304,425 for all member agencies combined. After allocating $140,000 in recycling revenues toward this total, the total cost was reduced to $164,425. Of the $164,425 remaining, the City’s portion when factored by population and waste hauler franchise, results in a MOU contribution of $41,134.

To prepare for the additional costs associated with regulatory compliance, the franchise fee for the refuse and recycling hauling contract with Monterey City Disposal Service (MCDS) was increased from 10% to 15% of gross receipts in December of 2020. Based on 2020 MCDS gross receipts, this equals roughly $300,000 per year (excluding staff costs) in franchise fees paid to the City.

Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 34 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to participate in the MOU process, however, the City would then need to implement and fund the required SB 1383 programs on its own.

DISCUSSION:

SB 1383 is regarded as one of the most significant waste diversion legislation efforts in the past 30 years. The State estimates that 20-23 million tons of organic waste (food/yard waste) are disposed of per year, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of all disposal. In addition to the amount of waste, the other main concern with this waste stream is the production of methane, which is estimated to be 80 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Landfills are estimated to be responsible for 21% of the State’s methane emissions.

Due to the magnitude and complexity of SB 1383 requirements, the MRWMD member agencies, regional waste haulers and the two solid waste management agencies in the County (MRWMD and Salinas Valley Recycles) began meeting to discuss compliance strategies in Quarter 4 (Q4) of 2020. While each member agency is responsible for compliance on its own, the funding and staffing levels required would likely be greatly reduced by collaborating with regional agencies expected to comply with the same regulations.

Some of the key tasks associated with the SB 1383 compliance will require extensive program implementation by the City, including:
 Collection and Processing – Processing of organic (green/food) waste from commercial and residential sources, labeling and color coding all carts  Monitoring and Enforcement – Conducting annual route reviews for contaminants, perform waste composition studies, issue notices and violations and penalties
 Product Procurement – Annually procure an amount of organic material (compost, renewable gas, mulch) that complies with the target established by CalRecycle
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 35  Ordinance Adoption – Adopt code requiring compliance with SB 1383 and establishing enforcement mechanism (City completed, December 2021)  Edible Food Recovery Program – Implement a program that connects edible food generators with recovery organizations
 Education and Outreach – Annually provide information including but not limited to edible food recovery, material separation, waste prevention, methane reduction
 Record Keeping and Reporting – Maintaining a centralized implementation record relating to SB 1383 compliance (available within 10 days notice) in addition to annual reporting to the State
The MOU is an effort by MRWMD member agencies to share in the costs of implementing or expanding diversion programs in order to comply with SB 1383. The MOU also has a potential benefit in that when demonstrating efforts to comply with State law, member agencies can show that they are making every reasonable effort to comply by cooperating with neighboring jurisdictions and working on compliance plans together. As of January 2022, all other member agencies of the MRWMD besides the City of Monterey have executed the MOU with their respective governing bodies.

The major terms of the MOU are:
 Parties have agreed to reimburse the MRWMD for their proportionate shares of annual costs incurred by the MRWMD including but not limited to public education, equipment procurement, reporting, contamination monitoring, organics processing, supporting edible food recovery, ordinance development and franchise agreement amendments  Parties shall determine shared costs by March 1st of each year  Parties may terminate their participation no later than April 1st of each year In addition, CalRecycle has recently published a non-competitive grant opportunity for assistance with compliance with SB 1383. The MRWMD has offered to apply on behalf of member agencies to combine efforts and minimize grant administration. The grant sets a base award amount of $20,000 for each agency and may be used for a variety of costs including but not limited to personnel, consultants, signage, training, social media, vehicles, equipment and educational material. If the MRWMD applies on the City’s behalf, the funds would be awarded to the MRWMD directly and expended based on discussions with other participating MRWMD member agencies in a manner consistent with the MOU.

For these reasons, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council approve resolutions authorizing the execution of an MOU with the MRWMD, authorize the Finance Director to appropriate $41,134 of General Fund ending balance to contractual services account 101-400- 4400-4200and authorize the City to participate in a joint application with the MRWMD for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for FY 2021-2022.

TT/
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 36 Attachments: 1. Resolution Executing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the MRWMD and Authorizing the Finance Director to Appropriate $41,134 of General Fund ending balance to contractual services account 101-400- 4400-4200 and Submit These Funds to MRWMD

2. Resolution Authorizing the City to Participate in a Joint Application with the MRWMD for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for FY 2021-2022
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 37 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19

APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MRWMD) AND MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 1383 AND AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO APPROPRIATE $41,134 OF GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE TO CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ACCOUNT 101-400-4400-4200 AND

SUBMIT THESE FUNDS TO MRWMD
WHEREAS, SB 1383 is recognized throughout the industry as being the most significant solid waste legislation in the past 30 years and focuses on the diversion of organic waste from disposal in landfills;
WHEREAS, according to the State of California, in 2017, 67% of waste in the state was organic;
WHEREAS, organic waste generates methane during decomposition, which has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide within the first 20 years of reaching the atmosphere; WHEREAS, the drought in 2015, exacerbated by climate change, cost the agriculture industry in the Central Valley approximately $2.7B and 20,000 jobs; WHEREAS, recovering edible food is critical in that 1 in 9 Californians are food insecure, and that unrecovered food becomes an organic waste product; WHEREAS, regulatory compliance will require the City, its waste hauler and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) to establish new or increase existing waste diversion programs to comply with state regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of the City and the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $41,134 of General Fund ending balance to contractual services Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 38 2 account 101-400-4400-4200 and to submit these funds to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 39 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19

AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN A JOINT APPLICATION WITH THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (MRWMD) FOR THE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FOR FY 2021-2022
WHEREAS, SB 1383 is recognized throughout the industry as being the most significant solid waste legislation in the past 30 years and focuses on the diversion of organic waste from disposal in landfills;
WHEREAS, according to the State of California, in 2017 67% of waste in the state was organic;
WHEREAS, organic waste generates methane during decomposition, which has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide within the first 20 years of reaching the atmosphere; WHEREAS, the drought in 2015, exacerbated by climate change, cost the agriculture industry in the Central Valley approximately $2.7B and 20,000 jobs; WHEREAS, recovering edible food is critical in that 1 in 9 Californians are food insecure, and that unrecovered food becomes an organic waste product; WHEREAS, regulatory compliance will require the City, its waste hauler and the MRWMD to establish new or increase existing waste diversion programs to comply with state regulations;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the City is authorized to participate in a joint application with the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) for the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program for FY 2021-2022. The City authorizes MRWMD to receive and administer the funds on behalf of the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 40 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 41 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Prepared By: Stella Sandoval, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Approve the Annual Report for the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) under the Property and Business Improvement District law of 1994 as Prepared by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau Committee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve the Advisory Board Annual Report and the attached Resolution for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Approval of the Annual Report by the City Council is required by the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code §36650 et. Seq.).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Countywide Tourism Improvement District collections are estimated at $3,669,345 for fiscal year 2021-2022 with approximately forty-seven percent (47%) coming from lodging within the City of Monterey. The City is entitled to 1% of the assessments collected to defer its costs related to collection of this proposed assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve the annual report as filed, or modify and approve as modified.

Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 42 DISCUSSION:

The purpose of the MCTID is to match private contributions with public funds to promote tourism in Monterey County and to capture our share of the California tourism market.

The Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), in partnership with the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, surrounding communities and lodging establishments; formed the Tourism Improvement District pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law) on January 1, 2019. The City Council adopted the levy of assessment for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023 on November 6, 2018 per Resolution No. 18-207. The ’94 Tourism Improvement District replaced the prior district which was formed under Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (’89 Law). The prior district was formed in 2006 and disestablished on December 31, 2018 per Resolution No. 18- 181 dated October 16, 2018. The City of Monterey is the lead agency for the MCTID, and as such, the Monterey City Council is responsible for receiving and reviewing the annual report.

The boundaries of the MCTID are the boundaries of the City of Monterey, the City of Marina, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Sand City, the City of Del Rey Oaks, the City of Seaside, the City of Salinas, the City of Soledad, and the unincorporated areas of the County of Monterey.

The assessment on lodging businesses within the MCTID is split into three (3) zones. Zone 1 is $2.00 per occupied room night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per occupied room night for limited service lodging businesses, Zone 2 (within the City of Salinas) is $2.50 and $1.50 respectively, and Zone 3 (City of Pacific Grove) is $4.00 and $2.00 respectively. These funds may only be used to administer marketing programs to promote the Monterey County as a tourism destination and to fund projects, programs and activities that benefit lodging businesses within the boundaries of the District.

The Tourism Improvement District, as required by the ’94 Law, shall prepare an annual report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected.

The annual report presented here is prepared by the MCCVB and the designated advisory board for the MCTID. This annual report includes no changes to the boundaries of the District; a list of the improvements and activities to be provided for the year; an estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities; the method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against their business for the year (no changes for fiscal year 2021-22); the amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from the previous year and the amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied. (Attachment 2 & 3)

RTK/ss
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. MCTID Annual Report to the City of Monterey FY 2021-22

3. MCCVB TID Reporting FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22
c: MCTID Executive Director, MCCVB
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 43 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12

APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE 2021-22 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey (the “City Council”) by Resolution No. 18-207 established the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (“MCTID”) on November 6, 2018, for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2019, and ending December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established the MCTID pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36650 et seq., which authorizes cities to establish business improvement areas for the purpose of promoting tourism; and
WHEREAS, the assessments levied for the MCTID have been and will be applied towards sales and marketing programs to market Monterey County lodging businesses as tourist, meeting, and event destinations, and other improvements and activities as set forth in the Management District Plan (“Plan”) adopted and approved by City Council Resolution No. 18- 207;
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) was designated as the MCTID Owner’s Association, which is required to prepare an annual report for each fiscal year except the first year, as described in California Streets and Highways Code section 36650; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has received the MCTID Owner’s Association Annual Report, which includes the required information and indicates no changes to the boundaries of the MCTID or to the original method and basis of levying the assessment; and WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36650 requires that the City Council approve the Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 44 2 1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. The City Council hereby approves the fiscal year 2021-2022 Annual Report for the MCTID and the continued levy and collection of the assessments for the 2021-2022 fiscal year in accordance with the assessment formula as provided for in the Annual Report and Plan on file with the City Clerk, and that said method and basis of calculating the assessments to be levied against each business in the MCTID has not been changed, increased, or modified from those previously adopted.

3. The boundaries of the MCTID shall remain the same, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to City Council Resolution No. 18-207.

4. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments against lodging businesses within the MCTID are tourism promotions and marketing programs to promote Monterey County as a tourism destination, and projects, programs, and activities that benefit lodging businesses located and operating within the boundaries of the district. There are no substantial changes in the improvements or activities for the MCTID in the Annual Report.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 45 Page | 1 MCCVB PO Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93942 P: 831-657-6400 www.SeeMonterey.com FY2021‐22 MCTID Annual Report to the City of Monterey
The Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is a partnership led by Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), the Owner’s Association, and includes the cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Marina, Sand City, Salinas, and Monterey County. There are no proposed changes to the boundaries of the MCTID or in any benefit zone or classification of businesses within the district for fiscal year 2021-22.

The MCTID Oversight Committee is an Advisory Committee to the MCCVB Board of Directors, Chaired by a lodging member of the MCCVB Board of Directors and is comprised of lodging representatives from within the MCTID boundaries. Voting committee seats are allocated per jurisdiction based on contribution level by jurisdiction. The MCTID Oversight Committee has full decision making authority over all programs funded by the MCTID in accordance with the 2019-23 MCTID Management District Plan (MDP). MCTID expenditures must provide benefit to the payers, i.e. must generate overnight stays for properties collecting and remitting the MCTID and must be done so in compliance with the MDP.

MCTID funds are combined with jurisdiction investments and private revenues generated by MCCVB to execute a robust regional tourism business development and marketing program for Monterey County.

MCTID assessments collected by lodging properties are based on occupied room nights and are submitted to the lodging property’s corresponding jurisdiction and then to the MCCVB (minus a 1% administrative fee.) The assessment is levied on all eligible lodging businesses (exclusions apply), existing and future, within the MCTID boundaries based upon a flat fee of $2.00 per occupied paid room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per occupied paid room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 1 and an additional .50 per occupied room in Zone 2 (in addition to the $2 or $1 respectively).

MCTID projected revenues per zone for FY2021-22 are as follows:

MCTID ZONES:

FY2020-21
Actual
FY2021-22
Projected
ZONE 1 - MCCVB (Includes Monterey County and the cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Marina, and Salinas)
$2,847,195 $3,555,182
ZONE 2 - City of Salinas (additional .50 per occupied room) $108,639 $114,163 Total MCTID Revenue $2,955,834 $3,669,345
The MCTID is a critical component of MCCVB’s Business Plan. The FY2021-22 Business Plan and Budget has been developed by MCCVB, the MCTID Oversight Committee and stakeholders. The Business Plan was approved by the MCCVB Board of Directors on June 24, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 46 Page | 2 MCCVB PO Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93942 P: 831-657-6400 www.SeeMonterey.com Zone 1 – MCCVB: Initiatives supported in whole or part by MCTID:

Group Business Development: $1,645,941
Strategies:
• Grow meetings preference with national group marketing campaign • Implement targeted sales plan to encourage corporate, association and incentive meetings of all sizes
• Monterey County group incentive to drive short term opportunities • Re-capture rotational association group business
• Host high profile industry events in Monterey to grow preference • Grow alliance partnerships; Maritz, ConferenceDirect, AMEX, SF Travel to increase lead volume
• In-market deployment to North East/Mid West sales representation to maintain presence
• Contract lead generation company to grow corporate and association segment to shorten gap of historical lead volume levels • Continue to pivot with domestic focused sales activities to include coverage with luxury leisure, drive market, tour operators etc. to grow awareness • Educate travel agents that have outdoor enthusiast, golf, wine and culinary focused clientele
• Stay connected with Visit California, Brand USA and SF Travel to gain insight on return of international market segment
Marketing Communications: $1,433,778
Strategies:
• Focus on higher value travelers
• Drive off-peak visitation
• Expand reach and awareness in leisure market
• Drive familiarity and preference with group market
• Continue luxury program to capitalize on increased domestic travel by super affluent travelers
• Infuse aspects of sustainable and responsible travel
• Refine systems, processes and metrics to be sure they meet current business needs
Community Relations and Visitor Services: $7,393
Strategies:
• Prioritize communications and outreach to keep destination hospitality businesses informed
• Continue to strengthen relationships with chambers and non-governmental agencies throughout Monterey County
• Focus on creating greater inclusion of jurisdictions in regional destination programs and promotion
• Promote local businesses to drive overnight visitation and increase economic impact
• Engage with visitors through an online platform, encouraging and promoting responsible behavior
Administration: $468,070
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 47 Page | 3 MCCVB PO Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93942 P: 831-657-6400 www.SeeMonterey.com Zone 2 - City of Salinas: Initiatives supported in whole or part by MCTID:

The MCTID is a critical component of the City of Salinas’s visitor services initiatives.

The City will invest in the operation of the Welcome Center located in the Freight Building.

The Welcome Center provides directions, maps, and suggestions on things to see and do in Salinas and the surrounding area, distributes brochures, guided walking tours of the historic downtown area, and concierge services. The Welcome Center offers referrals to local tours, guides, and contacts local and out of the area hotels and restaurants for reservations on behalf of visitors.

The Welcome Center has racks displaying Salinas and Monterey County information.

The Welcome Center solicits to receive and distribute brochures and guides from area attractions.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 48 FY 2020‐21 TID Zone 1 TID Zone 2
Incremental TID from FY 2019‐20 $          644,401 0
TID Revenue FY 2020‐21 $       2,847,195 $          108,639 Total TID Revenue $       3,491,596
Group Sales Expense $          837,077
Marketing Communications Expense $       2,199,548
Community Relations Expense $               2,078
Visitor Services Expense $             17,960
Administration Expense $          434,933
Total Expense $       3,491,596 $          108,639
FY 2021‐22 TID Zone 1 TID Zone 2
Incremental TID from FY 2020‐21 $ 0
TID Revenue FY 2021‐22 $       3,555,182 $          114,163 Total TID Revenue $       3,555,182
Group Sales Expense $       1,645,941
Marketing Communications Expense $       1,433,778
Community Relations Expense $               2,164
Visitor Services Expense $               5,228
Administration Expense $          468,070
Total Expense $       3,555,182 $          114,163

MCCVB CWC
TID Revenue FY 2021‐22 $       3,555,182 $          114,163 Other Revenue (TOT and Private) $       3,256,355
Total Revenue $       6,811,537
Group Sales Expense $       3,027,810
Marketing Communications Expense $       3,123,884
Community Relations Expense $          188,146
Visitor Services Expense $          118,312
Administration Expense $       1,044,618
Total Expense $       7,502,771 $          114,163
Loss made up  by Federal Stimulus (PPP and ERTC) $         (691,234) Total Budget Supported by TID, Jurisdiction Investment
(TOT) and Private Revenue
Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau
TID Reporting for FY 2020‐21 and FY 2021‐22
12/16/2021  10:28 AM PHM TID Report 2021 2122 2021 final ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 49 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Gaudenz Panholzer, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Authorize City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with Monterey County to Extend the Agreement Through January 31, 2027 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize City Manager to execute an amendment to the Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with Monterey County to extend the agreement.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The recommended action is consistent with the Council Value Driver “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents”. It is also consistent with Council action taken on September 1, 2020, making the Paramedic Program a permanent service of the Monterey Fire Department.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This authorization is to extend the existing agreement only. No new expenditures will be incurred as a result of extending this agreement. In the current fiscal year, the program is projected to cost $188,904 and these costs are reflected in the current budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to extend the agreement which would result in the termination of the paramedic program effective February 1, 2022. This action is not recommended as it would reduce the level of service currently being provided to residents and visitors of Monterey.

Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 50 DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey entered into an agreement to provide paramedic level first responder services with Monterey County and started providing those services on October 29, 2018. This agreement was amended to extend it for two years in January 2020. The current agreement with Monterey County is set to expire on January 31, 2022. In order to continue to provide paramedic services beyond that date the agreement needs to be extended. Monterey County has proposed an amendment to that agreement which will extend it an additional five years through January 31, 2027.

The paramedic program allows the Fire Department to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) services. These allow providers to implement more definitive care including, but not limited to, the following:
 Advanced airway management
 Initiating intravenous lines
 Administering medications
 Cardiac monitoring and defibrillation
The ALS procedures are extremely beneficial to patients suffering from cardiac emergencies (including cardiac arrest), airway obstructions and breathing complications, trauma and stroke.

ALS intervention can forestall death and minimize the effects of trauma and/or medical emergency. While Basic Life Support (BLS) care is very important in the EMS system, prompt ALS care provides the definitive, life-saving measures that are needed by critical patients. In essence, ALS brings the same initial procedures that are done in the hospital emergency room to the patient in the field.

At the September 1, 2020, meeting, the City Council authorized ending the 2-year pilot program and making the paramedic program a permanent service the City offers to residents and visitors. This program has proven to be effective in providing life-saving measures quickly to those needing emergency medical services. Several lives saved can be attributed directly to Monterey providing these services. The proposed action is required for the City to continue to provide these services.

Staff recommends that Council authorize City Manager to execute an amendment to the Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with Monterey County to extend the agreement through January 31, 2027.

GP/gp
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 51 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19

AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARAMEDIC

SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH MONTEREY COUNTY TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2027 (NOT A PROJECT UNDER CEQA ARTICLE 20, SECTION 15378 AND UNDER GENERAL RULE ARTICLE 5, SECTION 15061) WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has been providing paramedic services since October 2018 and intends to continue to do so, and
WHEREAS, the agreement between the City of Monterey and Monterey County that authorizes the paramedic services is due to expire on January 31, 2022, and WHEREAS, Monterey County has proposed to amend the current Paramedic Provider Agreement to change the end date to January 31, 2027, and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with Monterey County to extend the agreement through January 31, 2027.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this __ day of _____, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 52 2 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 53 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Grant Leonard, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Substantial Amendment to the 2021/2022 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds, and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing and receive public comments on the proposed Substantial Amendment to the 2021/2022 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds, and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Substantial Amendment and authorize submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

One of the City Council’s Value Drivers is: “Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.” The Action Plan is a one-year plan and budget that will implement year two of the City’s adopted 2020–2024 Five Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) for spending federal CDBG money on programs to benefit lowand moderate-income households residing in the City. Policies and programs identified in the Annual Action Plan are funded in Fiscal Year 2021/2022 (Program Year 21) and are consistent with the goals and priorities set in the Consolidated Plan.

Amending the 2021/2022 Annual Action Plan will allow the City to provide a new Major Home Rehabilitation Loan Program for low-income homeowners.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey’s 2021/2022 Annual Action Plan (Action Plan) has a $1.15 million CDBG budget. The funds consist of federal entitlement, carryover from the previous year and program income generated from Hotel Pacific rent, loan payments and property sales. The proposed Substantial Amendment would create a $100,000 Major Home Rehabilitation Loan Program.

This program will be funded through increased program income from additional loan payoffs.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The Action Plan is considered exempt under the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines (24 CFR Part 58). The Action Plan is also determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) because the proposed home rehabilitation program have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment.

Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 54 Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed Action Plan amendment focuses on rehabilitating existing housing. The environment is not particularly sensitive since all projects will focus on the existing housing stock.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed Action Plan amendment includes the home rehabilitation loan program. No cumulative impacts are foreseeable as the program focuses on rehabilitating existing housing.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The proposed Action Plan amendment includes the home rehabilitation loan program. No significant effect is anticipated as the program focuses on rehabilitating existing housing.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. No impacts are anticipated as the program focuses on rehabilitating existing housing.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No project sites listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code will be eligible.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project focuses on rehabilitating existing housing. All eligible projects will be reviewed for historic significance. If significant, the project will proceed through the individual environmental review process.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may make changes to the Substantial Amendment if it determines that changes are necessary to better implement City policy. However, staff has evaluated the Substantial Amendment and determined it implements policies contained in the General Plan Housing Element and the Con Plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 55 DISCUSSION:

To receive CDBG funds, the City must submit an Action Plan to HUD each year. The Action Plan describes the City’s planned investments for the coming program year, including proposed actions and CDBG projects. The Action Plan is the City’s application for federal funds and provides a yearly operating plan for activities. It outlines the City’s priorities for addressing the needs of the community’s disadvantaged and low-income households. A number of programs and activities are included in Program Year 2021 (PY21) to address community needs. These activities relate back to the goals and objectives presented in the Con Plan (available on monterey.org/housing). These programs include:
 Planning and Administration of existing and new housing programs  Public Service Grants to non-profit agencies serving Monterey residents  Public Infrastructure Grants to rehabilitate public facilities serving Monterey residents  Housing Preservations Programs, including minor home repair grants and the Purchase and Resale Program
The Action Plan includes a total estimated funding amount of $1,159,829 for PY21. This funding comes from two sources: a direct entitlement grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and program income.
 $259,829 in entitlement funds from CDBG/HUD
 $900,000 in program income (funds that are generated from Hotel Pacific ground rent, pay off of rehabilitation loans and the sales of City owned deed restricted units).

Proposed Substantial Amendments
HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 91.505 require amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans whenever an entitlement jurisdiction:
 Makes a change in its allocation priorities or a change in the method of distributing funds;
 Becomes aware of HUD-imposed regulatory changes guiding planning, reporting, monitoring, and evaluation requirements;
 Carries out an activity, using funds from any program covered by the Consolidated Plan (including program income) not previously described in the Action Plan; or  Changes the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity.

Due to the increased interest in the Housing Rehabilitation Program, the City will be amending the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan in order to add an additional activity to serve the residents of Monterey. The Proposed Program/Activity and Allocation is listed in the table below:

MONTEREY PROPOSED FY 2021-2022 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
Previous Allocation Proposed Funding
Housing Preservation and Acquisition
Major Rehabilitation Loan Program $0 $100,000
TOTAL $100,000
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 56 A description of the new activities being added to the fiscal year are as follows:
 Major Rehabilitation Program
o This program provides low-interest loans to eligible low-income homeowners for major rehabilitation or modernization of their home. Major repairs include new foundations, bringing the home up to current Uniform Building Code and repairing or replacing major systems to meet health and safety requirements. All work to be done will also include a lead-based paint inspection.

The above activity and funding amount will be revised in the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan.

Funding for this program will come from increased program income from additional loan payoffs during the first two quarters of Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

HUD requires that entitlement communities provide the public with a 30-day comment period to provide residents and other interested parties an opportunity to provide input on the proposed Amendment. Public commenting will run from December 15, 2021 to January 14, 2021.

Because these changes are a result of HUD imposed regulatory requirements, they require a substantial amendment to the Annual Action Plans.

Conclusion
In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and receive public comments on the proposed Substantial Amendment to the 2021/2022 Annual Action Plans for Community Development Block Grant Funds, and authorize submission to HUD.

KC/GL
e: Mariela Lopez, HUD, San Francisco Regional Office
Public Services Grant Applicants and Attendees
Coalition of Homeless Service Providers
Monterey Neighborhood Associations
Monterey Business Associations
David J. Hober, Police Chief
Housing Outreach List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 57 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
ADOPT A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE 2021/2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) WHEREAS, since 1975, the City of Monterey has been an eligible metropolitan entitlement city under the CDBG programs;
WHEREAS, the Five Year (2020-2024) Consolidated Plan (the “Consolidated Plan”) adopted in Resolution No. 20-049 identified funding sources to provide housing and housing services and prioritized the use of local, state and federal funds; WHEREAS, consistent with Consolidated Plan priorities for Housing and Community Services, the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget and Action Plan (the “Program Year 2021 Action Plan”) provides resources to implement the Consolidated Plan to meet HUD National Objectives;
WHEREAS, the City has received additional program income for the Community Development Block Grant program;
WHEREAS, this year the City has received additional public interest in the Community Development Block Grant Home Rehabilitation Program;
WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grant regulations require a Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan to add additional programs, WHEREAS, the Action Plan is considered exempt under the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines (24 CFR Part 58). The Action Plan is also determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) because the proposed home rehabilitation program have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed Action Plan amendment focuses on rehabilitating existing housing. The environment is not particularly sensitive since all projects will focus on the existing housing stock.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 58 2 significant. The proposed Action Plan amendment includes the home rehabilitation loan program. No cumulative impacts are foreseeable as the program focuses on rehabilitating existing housing.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The proposed Action Plan amendment includes the home rehabilitation loan program. No significant effect is anticipated as the program focuses on rehabilitating existing housing.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. No impacts are anticipated as the program focuses on rehabilitating existing housing.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No project sites listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code will be eligible.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project focuses on rehabilitating existing housing. All eligible projects will be reviewed for historic significance. If significant, the project will proceed through the individual environmental review process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the Substantial Amendment to the 2021/2022 Annual Action Plans for Community Development Block Grant Funds, and authorizes submittal of the Substantial Amendment to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as presented and discussed at the January 18th, 2022 Public Hearing and reflected in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 59 Exhibit A

CITY OF MONTEREY
2021-2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
Introduction
The City of Monterey is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives funding every year from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for housing and community development programs. Specifically, the City has received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

Per HUD regulations at 24 CFR 91.505, the City shall amend the approved Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan when:
 A substantial change (e.g., 50% or more) in its allocation priorities or a substantial change in the method of distribution of funds takes place;  Carries out an activity, using funds from any program covered by the consolidated plan (including program income), not previously described in the action plan; or  Substantially change the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity.

Additionally, the substantial change criteria utilized by the City of Monterey as established by the City’s Citizen Participation Plan is determined by a change in an activity which had been originally initiated through the HUD Program and in which the change would exceed:

1. Changes in the use of CDBG funds from one eligible project to another (for example, from housing rehabilitation to public services); or

2. A proposed action or change that may create a significant community impact. A significant community impact is defined as either:
a. Any federal grant-funded project or activity that results in a significant environmental impact as that term is defined pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq); or b. Any federal grant-funded project or activity that generates relocation of at least 20 resident households and/or two existing businesses which are subject to the federal Uniform Relocation Act (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq, 42 U.S.C. 4621 et seq, and 42 U.S.C. 4651 et seq).

Proposed Amendment to the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan
Due to the increased interest in the Housing Rehabilitation Program, the City will be amending the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan in order to add an additional activity to serve the residents of Monterey. The Proposed Program/Activity and Allocation is listed in the table below:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 60 Exhibit A
MONTEREY PROPOSED FY 2021-2022 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
Previous
Allocation
Proposed
Funding
Housing Preservation and Acquisition
Major Rehabilitation Loan Program $0 $100,000
TOTAL $100,000
A description of the new activities being added to the fiscal year are as follows:
 Major Rehabilitation Program
o This program provides low-interest loans to eligible low-income homeowners for major rehabilitation or modernization of their home. Major repairs include new foundations, bringing the home up to current Uniform Building Code and repairing or replacing major systems to meet health and safety requirements.

All work to be done will also include a lead-based paint inspection.

The above activity and funding amount will be revised in the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan.

Public Comments
The City will incorporate any comments received during the 30-day public comment period.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 61 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period January 19 through February 17, 2022 Pursuant to AB 361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions, and Direct Staff to Conduct Meetings in a Teleconference-Only Remote Format (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider the state of the COVID-19 emergency and adopt a resolution to authorize remote teleconference meetings for City of Monterey legislative bodies under emergency-specific Brown Act provisions for the period of January 19 through February 17, 2022. This action is required to comply with the Brown Act. It does not change currently established meeting procedures. It is further recommended that the Council direct staff to conduct public meetings in a remote-only virtual format, ceasing in-person attendance, due to the public health threats posed by the rapidly-spreading Omicron variant.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The recommendations in this report are consistent with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54950 through 54963). It is the City’s policy to ensure the public’s health, safety, and welfare of its employees, residents, and visitors. Continuing to authorize remote meetings will help reduce the spread of COVID-19.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no new or additional cost associated with continuing to offer free and secure teleconferencing participation in the City’s public meetings through toll-free telephone and internet-based ZoomGov webinars, and free live-streamed meeting observation on cable access television and/or on the internet via YouTube when possible. The City currently pays $5,500 annually for the ZoomGov webinar accounts and toll-free phone access used for public meetings. Live streaming of public meetings on Comcast Channel 25 is provided under an ongoing public, educational, and government (“PEG”) cable access agreement with Access Monterey Peninsula, Inc. in exchange for thirty-two percent (32%) of cable franchise fees paid to the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 62 environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Upon consideration of the state of emergency, the Council may choose not to authorize emergency teleconference meetings. This would mean that meetings held after January 21, 2022 (the end date per Resolution No. 21-130 C.S.) would be subject to Government Code section 54953(b)(3) pre-COVID-19 Brown Act noticing and quorum requirements for any remote teleconference attendance at public meetings by elected and appointed officials of the City’s legislative bodies.

The Council may also choose to continue to authorize emergency teleconference meetings but continue its existing direction to staff to hold all meetings in the hybrid format (allowing both inperson and remote attendance).

DISCUSSION:

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented significant health and safety concerns that resulted in the City of Monterey and many other public agencies holding public meetings with safer remote attendance methods than ordinarily allowed by the Brown Act, as fully authorized by executive orders issued by Governor Newsom. A California law chaptered in September 2021, Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), amended the Brown Act to require legislative bodies to make certain findings in order for members to participate remotely in public meetings with fewer restrictions during a declared state of emergency. On October 5, November 2, November 16, December 7, and December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted resolutions making findings to ensure transparent, healthy, and safe public access to meetings of its legislative bodies, and authorized remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies. The current authorization is effective through January 21, 2022.

On October 5, 2021, when the Council first made the necessary AB 361 findings, it unanimously directed City staff to conduct meetings of the Council and City boards, committees, and commissions in the “hybrid” format (offering both in-person and virtual/teleconference attendance options). At this time, due to the state of the pandemic and particularly the threat posed by the extremely transmissible Omicron variant, it is the recommendation of staff to cease to offer an in-person attendance option and hold public meetings with remote attendance only, to protect the health of all attendees. If the Council chooses to direct staff to conduct public meetings with remote attendance only, as recommended, this direction can be changed with future findings regarding the COVID-19 state of emergency, which will continue to be agendized for the Council at least every 30 days as required by AB 361.

The ZoomGov platform currently used by the City for teleconference meeting attendance allows for participation that is free, broadly accessible, safe, and secure. The Council and public are able to attend meetings remotely using any internet-accessible device or by dialing toll-free on the telephone, and remain socially distanced while engaging in important public discourse.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 63 Facts supporting the Council’s AB 361 findings are:
 The B.1.1.529 coronavirus strain (“Omicron variant”) was classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a Variant of Concern on November 26, 2021, was identified in the United States as reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) on December 1, 2021, and is currently the prevalent variant in the United States as reported by the CDC on January 11, 2022.
 The community transmission rate in Monterey County is “High” (the highest level) as reported by the CDC on January 14, 2022. Bordering counties’ transmission rates are “High” (all five counties).
 Monterey County Health Department continues to recommend that physical and social distancing strategies be practiced in Monterey County, which includes remote meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies, to the extent possible.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the current state of the COVID-19 emergency and, in order to protect the health and safety of public meeting attendees, adopt the attached resolution to authorize emergency teleconferencing through February 17, 2022, and direct staff to conduct public meetings with teleconference/remote attendance only.

CBK
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
cc: All City boards, commissions, and committees
Neighborhood Associations
Business Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 64 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZE REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS

OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 19 THROUGH FEBRUARY 17, 2022
PURSUANT TO AB 361 RALPH M. BROWN ACT PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered to take actions necessary to protect, and has an important governmental interest in protecting, the health, safety and welfare of those who participate in meetings of the City’s legislative bodies subject to California Government Code sections 54950-54963 (the Ralph M. Brown Act, or “Brown Act”); WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 16, December 7, and December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted resolutions authorizing teleconference attendance of public meetings for the City Council and Boards, Commissions and Committees due to the imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees relating to in person meeting attendance;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency;
WHEREAS, the B.1.1.529 coronavirus strain (“Omicron variant”) was classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a Variant of Concern on November 26, 2021, was identified in the United States as reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) on December 1, 2021, and is currently the prevalent variant in the United States as reported by the CDC on January 11, 2022;
WHEREAS, the community transmission rate in Monterey County is “High” (the highest level) as reported by the CDC on January 14, 2022. Bordering counties’ transmission rates are “High” (all five counties). The City Council finds that the aforementioned conditions of extreme peril continue to exist in the City of Monterey;
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Health Department continues to recommend that physical and social distancing strategies be practiced in Monterey County, which includes remote meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies, to the extent possible; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 65 2 change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the City Council hereby finds:

1. Pursuant to Government Code section 59453(e)(3)(B)(i), the City Council has reviewed the circumstances of the continued state of emergency posed by the spread of COVID-19, and finds that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the public and members of City legislative bodies to meet safely in person, and holding meetings exclusively in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees;

2. Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3)(B)(ii), the Monterey County Health Department continues to promote social distancing.

3. This Resolution expires on February 17, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY THAT, except for meetings and/or public hearings that have already been noticed on or before today's date that provide otherwise, the meetings of the City Council and city boards, commissions, and committees shall use teleconferencing meetings instead of in person meetings pursuant to Government Code section 59453(e)(1). To the extent Resolution 21-130, adopted on December 21, 2021 and in effect until January 21, 2022, authorizes hybrid in person and teleconference meetings, it is hereby superseded with this directive to conduct meetings virtually.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this __ day of ______, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 66 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Alyson Hauck, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: 1st Reading - Authorizing Amendment to the Contract between the City of Monterey and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System; and Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Monterey; and Resolution Modifying Certain Job Classification Titles for Temporary / Seasonal Part-time Positions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Monterey stating its intent to amend the contract between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Monterey regarding the City’s “hourly exclusion” contract language.

2. Adopt the attached Resolution Modifying Certain Job Classifications Titles for Temporary/Seasonal Part-time Positions.

3. Adopt, on first reading, the attached Ordinance Authorizing Amendment to the Contract between the City of Monterey and the Board of Administrative of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). This ordinance will return to the Council for second and final reading at least 20 days after the first reading, in accordance with state law.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action does not change existing policy, rather, it updates contract language to reflect how the City and CalPERS interpret the contract. Specifically, part-time hourly employees (Part Time Seasonal or “PTS” employees) do not receive CalPERS retirement benefits. PTS employees work no more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year. (City Code section 25-2.41.) This contract amendment will provide clarity to CalPERS regarding the City’s status quo application of the “hourly exclusion” language in the CalPERS contract and additional transparency regarding classifications included and excluded from the City’s CalPERS benefit.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None identified.

Date: 1/18/2022
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 67 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to adopt the Resolution of Intention and first reading of the Ordinance approving amendment of the CalPERS contract, and provide alternative direction to staff. This is not recommended because the existing CalPERS contract amendment language regarding the City’s hourly exclusion, entered into in 1966, does not easily identify those classifications excluded from the City’s CalPERS retirement benefit. The contract amendment will provide additional clarity and transparency regarding the City’s current application of the hourly exclusion language.

DISCUSSION:

Background Information:

The City of Monterey contracts with CalPERS to provide benefits to its eligible employees. In September 1966, the City and CalPERS modified the City’s CalPERS contract to provide an exclusion for hourly employees.

Specifically, Paragraph 5 of the City’s current CalPERS contract provides in relevant part that “[i]n addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by [the PERL], the following classes of employees shall not become members of [CalPERS]:
a. PERSONS COMPENSATED ON AN HOURLY BASIS ON OR
AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1966” (Emphasis in original.)
For background, the City hires employees on a full-time , regular part-time (“RPT”), or part-time hourly (“PTS”) basis. The City maintains a salary schedule for its full-time and RPT employees that lists salaries based on a semi-monthly and annual rate of pay. The City also maintains a separate hourly wage schedule for its PTS employees, which lists wages based on an hourly rate only. RPT employees have variable hours, do not work full-time, and they receive CalPERS retirement benefits. In contrast, PTS employees are excluded from CalPERS retirement benefits pursuant to the City’s CalPERS contract.

To provide clarity between the classifications included in the City’s contract, and the classifications excluded from the City’s contract, the City and CalPERS have negotiated language for a contract amendment to list the actual PTS classification titles excluded from the City’s contract.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 68 Specifically, the contract amendment deletes the current Paragraph 5 and replaces it with the following:

5. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System:
a. ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN, ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK,

AQUATICS SPECIALIST, SENIOR AQUATICS SPECIALIST,

ARTIFACTS SPECIALIST, CAMP COOK, CAMP DIRECTOR,

ASSISTANT CAMP DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICE

OFFICER INTERN, FACILITY WORKER, HUMAN

RESOURCES TECHNICIAN, HARBOR ATTENDANT, INTERN,

LIBRARY CLERK, LIBRARY PAGE, PARKING FACILITY

ATTENDANT, PARKING ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVE,

PERSONAL TRAINER, PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTOR, SENIOR

HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN, SPORTS OFFICIAL,

SUPPORT ANALYST, SUPPORT PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTOR,

REFERENCE/CHILDREN'S LIBRARIAN, JANITORIAL

WORKER, LIFEGUARD, SENIOR FACILITY SPECIALIST,

MUSEUM ATTENDANT, PARK ASSISTANT, MAINTENANCE

WORKER, LITTER CONTROL WORKER, GUEST SERVICES

ATTENDANT, DESK ATTENDANT, FIRE INSPECTOR,

SPECIALTY CLASS INSTRUCTOR, SENIOR SPORTS

SPECIALIST, RECREATION ASSISTANT, RECREATION

LEADER/SENIOR RECREATION LEADER, AND MILITARY

AFFAIRS COORDINATOR PROSPECTIVELY FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT.

Removal of the exclusion of "Persons Compensated on an
Hourly Basis onor After September 1, 1966", pursuant to Section 20503, is declarative of agency's previous
interpretation and does not mandate any new classes of
employees into membership.

CalPERS requires a very specific process that local agencies must follow in order to amend their contracts, with the contract amendment documents drafted and provided by CalPERS itself. The first step involves Council approval of the Resolution of Intent and first reading of the Ordinance.

The second reading/adoption of the Ordinance must take place no earlier than 20 days after adoption of the Resolution of Intention to amend the contract.

Per CalPERS rules, the effective date of the contract amendment may be as early as the day after the effective date of the final action of the governing body.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 69 Attachments:

1. Resolution of Intention

2. Resolution Modifying Job Classification Titles

3. Ordinance Amending CalPERS Contract with Exhibit: CalPERS Sample Amendment to Contract

4. Certification of Governing Body’s Action

5. Certification of PA Compliance with 7505
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 70

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

AND THE

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF MONTEREY
WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and
WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and
WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change:

To provide Section 20503 (Removal of the Contract Exclusion of “Persons Compensated on an Hourly Basis on or After September 1, 1966”); and to provide for the exclusions of Accounting Technician, Administrative Clerk, Aquatics Specialist, Senior Aquatics Specialist, Artifacts Specialist, Camp Cook, Camp Director/Assistant Camp Director, Community Service Officer Intern, Facility Worker, Human Resources Technician, Harbor Attendant, Intern, Library Clerk, Library Page, Parking Facility Attendant, Parking Enforcement Representative, Personal Trainer, Preschool Instructor, Senior Human Resources Technician, Sports Official, Support Analyst, Support Preschool Instructor, Reference/Children’s Librarian, Janitorial Worker, Lifeguard, Senior Facility Specialist, Museum Attendant, Park Assistant, Maintenance Worker, Litter Control Worker, Guest Services Attendant, Desk Attendant, Fire Inspector, Specialty Class Instructor, Senior Sports Specialist, Recreation Assistant, Recreation Leader/Senior Recreation Leader and Military Affairs Coordinator prospectively from the effective date of this amendment to contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body of the above agency does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and by this reference made a part hereof.

By:_________________________________
Presiding Officer
_________________________________
Title
________________________________
Date adopted and approved
(Amendment)
CON-302 (Rev. 3/9/2016 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 71 rc) RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12

MODIFYING CERTAIN JOB CLASSIFICATION TITLES FOR TEMPORARY/SEASONAL

PART-TIME POSITIONS
WHEREAS, in agreement with the Amendment to the Contract between the City of Monterey and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System regarding the City’s status quo application of the “hourly exclusion” language in the CalPERS contract and additional transparency regarding classifications included and excluded from the City’s CalPERS benefit;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability; WHEREAS, CalPERS requested that the City differentiate classification titles for parttime/seasonal positions exempt from CalPERS membership pursuant to the hourly exclusion from full-time classification titles;
WHEREAS, the following City of Monterey Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time job classifications are exempt from CalPERS enrollment will have the following proposed titles:

Proposed Classification Title Current Classification Title Accounting Technician Accounting Assistant; Accounting Specialist Administrative Clerk Office Assistant; Administrative Assistant Aquatics Specialist Same
Artifact Specialist Same
Camp Cook Same
Camp Director / Assistant Camp Director Camp Director; Assistant Camp Director; Playground Director Community Svc Officer Intern Same
Desk Attendant Same
Facility Worker Facility Attendant; Parking Facility Worker Fire Inspector Same
Guest Services Attendant Same
Harbor Attendant Harbor Security Worker
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 72 2 Human Resources Technician Same
Intern Same; Engineering Intern
Janitorial Worker Custodian
Library Clerk Library Assistant I; Library Assistant II Library Page Same; Senior Library Page
Lifeguard Same
Litter Control Worker Same
Maintenance Worker
Park, Parking, Streets, Building Maintenance Worker,
Craftsworker, Senior Craftsworker
Military Affairs Coordinator Same
Museum Attendant Same; Museum Attendant II
Park Assistant Park Attendant
Parking Facility Attendant Parking Facility Worker
Parking Enforcement Representative Parking Enforcement Officer Personal Trainer N/A
Preschool Instructor Lead Preschool Instructor
Recreation Assistant Recreation Specialist
Reference / Children’s Librarian Librarian
Senior Aquatics Specialist Same
Senior Facility Specialist Same
Senior Human Resources Technician Same
Senior Recreation Leader / Recreation Leader
Same; Site Director / Afterschool; Snack Bar Attendant; Tot Activity Leader
Senior Sports Specialist Same
Specialty Class Instructor Same; Teaching Specialist
Sports Official Same
Support Analyst Administrative Analyst; Finance Analyst Support Preschool Instructor Same
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the proposed CalPERS exempt Part-time Temporary Seasonal job classification titles go into effect when the CalPERS contract amendment is adopted. The salary and/or wage schedule may be amended administratively to reflect these title updates.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 73 3 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 74 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend its retirement contract with CalPERS to remove current language that describes the class of employees excluded from the CalPERS retirement benefits as “Persons Compensated on an Hourly Basis on or After September 1, 1966” and replace it with language that lists the following classes of employees who are excluded from the CalPERS retirement benefits, as follows:

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN, ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK,

AQUATICS SPECIALIST, SENIOR AQUATICS SPECIALIST,

ARTIFACTS SPECIALIST, CAMP COOK, CAMP DIRECTOR,

ASSISTANT CAMP DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER

INTERN, FACILITY WORKER, HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN,

HARBOR ATTENDANT, INTERN, LIBRARY CLERK, LIBRARY PAGE,

PARKING FACILITY ATTENDANT, PARKING ENFORCEMENT

REPRESENTATIVE, PERSONAL TRAINER, PRESCHOOL

INSTRUCTOR, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN,

SPORTS OFFICIAL, SUPPORT ANALYST, SUPPORT PRESCHOOL

INSTRUCTOR, REFERENCE/CHILDREN'S LIBRARIAN, JANITORIAL

WORKER, LIFEGUARD, SENIOR FACILITY SPECIALIST, MUSEUM

ATTENDANT, PARK ASSISTANT, MAINTENANCE WORKER, LITTER

CONTROL WORKER, GUEST SERVICES ATTENDANT, DESK

ATTENDANT, FIRE INSPECTOR, SPECIALTY CLASS INSTRUCTOR,

SENIOR SPORTS SPECIALIST, RECREATION ASSISTANT,

RECREATION LEADER/SENIOR RECREATION LEADER, AND

MILITARY AFFAIRS COORDINATOR PROSPECTIVELY FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT.

WHEREAS, this action does not change existing policy, rather, it updates contract language to reflect how the City and CalPERS interpret the contract. Specifically, part-time hourly employees (Part Time Seasonal or “PTS” employees) do not receive CalPERS retirement benefits. PTS employees work no more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year. (City Code section 25-2.41.) This contract amendment will provide clarity to CalPERS regarding the City’s status quo application of the “hourly exclusion” language in the CalPERS contract and additional transparency regarding classifications included and excluded from the City’s CalPERS benefit.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 75 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the draft ordinance does not involve the approval of a “project” because the ordinance and its implementation do not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment or in a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (See Pub. Resources Code Section 21065: CEQA Guidelines Section 15357, 15377, 15378) NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: An amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Monterey and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto and marked “Exhibit,” and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.

SECTION 3: The Mayor of the City of Monterey is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said agency.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: This ordinance and the CalPERS contract amendment shall be in full force and effect one (1) day from and after its final passage and adoption, and prior to the expiration of three days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the Monterey County Herald, a newspaper of general circulation, daily published and circulated in the County of Monterey and thenceforth and the City of Monterey, thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 76 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 77 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 78 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 79 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 80 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 81 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 82 Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 17, Packet Page 83 California Public Employees’ Retirement System
Financial Office | Pension Contracts and Prefunding Programs Division P.O. Box 942703, Sacramento, CA 94229-2703
888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377) | TTY: (877) 249-7442 | www.calpers.ca.gov Certification of Governing Body’s Action
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the ____________________________________________________________________ of the (governing body)
_________________________________________________________________________ (public agency)
on ________________________.
(date)
_______________________________________
Clerk/Secretary
_______________________________________
Title
PERS-CON12 (rev. 1/22/19)
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 18, Packet Page 84 Certification of Compliance with
Government Code Section 7507
I hereby certify that in accordance with Government Code section 7507, the future annual costs as determined by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for the increase or change in retirement benefit(s) have been made public at a public meeting of the _______________________________ of the _________________________________________ (governing body) (public agency)
on ________________ which is at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the Resolution / (date)
Ordinance. Adoption of the retirement benefit increase or change will not be placed on the consent calendar.
___________________________________
Clerk/Secretary
___________________________________
Title
Date ___________________
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 19, Packet Page 85 City Council
Agenda Report
№12/12
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Third Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts After Draft Map or Maps are Drawn and on the Potential Sequence of Elections for Staggered Terms of Office (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct the Third Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts After Draft Map or Maps are Drawn and on the Potential Sequence of Elections for Staggered Terms of Office.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Conducting multiple public hearings for the implementation of by-district elections is required under State law. The City’s policy is to uphold the federal and California constitutions and to take all steps necessary to ensure equal protection under the law and the right to vote. In addition, this public hearing supports the City Council’s value driver to “Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes, and appreciates input from all” as well as “working to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Sufficient funds are available for staff and a consultant to conduct this public hearing and additional public engagement efforts to shift from an at-large to district-based election system.

Staff estimates the cost for this unbudgeted and unplanned work program to range between $75,000 and $100,000, excluding staff time. The unbudgeted cost for this program will be included as a modification in the Mid-Year Budget adjustments.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 86 this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to conduct the public hearing or to postpone this item.

However, this is not recommended, as this third public hearing is required to meet the legal timeline for implementing district-based elections.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
The City of Monterey currently utilizes an at-large election system. This means that all voters, no matter where they live in the City, have a say in electing every member of the City Council.

A district-based election system is one where the City is divided into separate geographical areas making up the districts, and voters residing within the district elect a representative who also resides within the district. On November 16, 2021, the Monterey City Council adopted Resolution 21-119, indicating its intention to convert to a by-district system (see Attachments 6 and 7).

At the first public hearing on district-based elections held on December 7, 2021, the City Council voted to direct that the mapping process proceed with four councilmember districts and a mayor at-large (see Attachment 4). This approach is consistent with the City’s Charter, which states:
“The Council shall be comprised of the Mayor and four (4) Councilmembers and shall be the legislative body of the City.” A second public hearing was held on December 21, 2021 to receive public feedback before draft maps were drawn and presented to the public.

On December 28, 2021, four (4) draft maps were published online at www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting and physically posted at the agenda posting board outside the City Council Chamber (580 Pacific Street), as well as the windows to the front entrances of the Monterey Public Library (625 Pacific Street), El Estero Park Center (777 Pearl Street), Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center (735 Ramona Street), and Scholze Park Center (280 Dickman Avenue).

The third public hearing was scheduled for January 4, 2022 but was not held due to a clerical error with the posting of the Spanish-language Public Hearing notice in the Monterey Herald.

Instead, the City Council took the opportunity on January 4 to hold a Public Appearance (general public discussion) to review the four draft maps and learn more about the sequencing of elections.

The third public hearing will be held on January 18, 2022, at which time the City Council will receive additional public feedback on the draft maps and discuss the potential sequence of elections for staggered terms of office.

Criteria for Creating Districts
The City must comply with several mandatory criteria when the districts are created. These factors include: there must be population equality across districts (no greater than a 10% deviation), race cannot be the “predominant” factor or criteria when drawing districts, and Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 87 minority voting rights may not be diluted, in compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA).

In addition, the California Elections Code requires to the extent practicable that district lines be adopted that meet the following criteria: districts are geographically contiguous, communities of interest are maintained, boundaries are easily identifiable, districts are geographically compact, and boundaries do not favor or discriminate against a political party. The criteria for creating districts were further explained in the December 7, 2021 Agenda Report (Attachment 4).

Public Hearing and Engagement
To avoid a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit, final maps must be adopted by February 16, 2022, which is a modified timeline extended pursuant to a Tolling Agreement executed between LULAC and the City. Therefore, the fifth and final Public Hearing will be held at the Regular Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2022. The public hearing process, with set requirements for each public hearing, is mandated under State law. The current schedule is attached (see Attachment 2).

Since early November 2021, the City has been working to educate the public and seek feedback from the community to help plan, draw, and define councilmember districts, and provide feedback on the districting process. The City’s website about the districting process is on the City’s “Have Your Say Monterey” public engagement portal at haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting. On this portal, the public can learn about the process, ask questions, review the implementation timeline, download “Communities of Interest” forms and draft maps to complete and submit, view draft and proposed district maps when available, and read all public comments submitted to the City on the districting process.

Other outreach efforts include social media posts, e-mail blasts, media releases, live video updates from the City Manager, a postcard mailer to all households, a mapmaking station at the Monterey Public Library, a virtual neighborhood engagement and community workshop held on December 9, 2021, and print advertisements in the Monterey Herald, Monterey County Weekly, and the region’s Spanish-language newspaper, El Sol.

Public hearing notices, agenda reports, and essential documents are also available and have been published in Spanish, in accordance with State law.

Draft Maps
The City’s public engagement process encouraged community members to provide feedback on their Communities of Interest and potential councilmember district boundaries. As of January 5, 2022, the City received 24 proposed district map submissions using the Community Mapping Tool (“placemats”), 12 completed Communities of Interest Forms, and over 50 e-mails and letters. All submitted feedback, including correspondence from the public, can be viewed and downloaded at www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting.

The City’s demographer, Redistricting Partners, used the information from the publiclysubmitted Communities of Interest Forms and councilmember district maps from the public to develop four (4) draft map plans, named Abalone, Bat Ray, Cuttlefish, and Dolphin. Each draft map shows four (4) potential councilmember districts. All draft maps developed by the City’s Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 88 demographer are in compliance with criteria mandated by State and Federal law, including population equality across districts (no greater than a 10% deviation).

On December 28, 2021, the draft maps were published online and physically posted at the City Council Chamber, Monterey Public Library, El Estero Park Center, Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center, and Scholze Park Center.

Recommendation: The City Council is asked to receive public feedback on the four (4) draft maps and choose one map to move forward in the process. Modifications or changes to the map could be directed to Redistricting Partners for consideration, as long as it meets legal requirements.

Potential Sequence of Elections
During the public hearing process, in addition to selecting a final councilmember district map, the City Council will also identify which two districts will hold district-based elections in 2022 and which two will hold district-based elections in 2024 (the “sequencing schedule”). The map and sequencing schedule will be included in the districting ordinance, and presented for public input and consideration at first and second readings as reflected in the public hearing timeline (details in Attachment 2).

Legal requirements
Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010(b), in determining the final sequencing schedule, the City Council shall give special consideration to the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (protecting the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice) and it shall take into account the preferences expressed by members of the districts.

How are the new district areas phased in?
Councilmembers whose terms expire in 2022 will continue to serve the City at-large for their elected terms, and will have the opportunity to run for district-based seats in November 2022, provided they reside in one of the two districts scheduled for that election.

Councilmembers whose terms do not expire until 2024 will continue to serve the City at-large for their elected terms, and will have the opportunity to run for district-based seats in November 2024, provided they reside in one of the two districts scheduled for that election.

What happens if multiple current councilmembers live in the same district? If multiple incumbents live in the same councilmember district, and an election is held in that district in 2022, the incumbents are eligible to run for election in that district along with any other candidates. The person who receives the most votes will win the seat for that district (and the four-year term that goes with it), while any losing incumbent will drop off the City Council, either immediately if their elected term expires in 2022, or in 2024 if their elected term expires in 2024.

In other words, even if a current councilmember whose elected term ends in 2024 is defeated in a bid to win a district-based seat in 2022, he will continue to serve on the City Council as an atlarge councilmember until his elected term expires. If a current councilmember whose elected term ends in 2024 wins a district-based seat in 2022, then he would resign his at-large seat. The vacancy would be filled pursuant to Charter section 2.5 which provides in part that “[a] vacancy Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 89 in an elective office shall be filled by appointment by the Council, such appointee to hold office until the next General Municipal Election and until a successor is elected and installed.” What happens if no councilmember resides in a district? After the sequencing schedule is adopted, if no councilmember resides in a district scheduled for the November 2022 election, then only non-incumbents will be qualified to run for election in that district. If no councilmember resides in a district scheduled for the November 2024 election, that district will continue to be represented by the remaining at-large councilmembers until 2024 when its first district-based election will be held.

Recommendation: Once one of the four draft maps is selected to move forward in the process (with potential modifications), Council will provide feedback on the sequencing schedule. Two (2) districts will be selected to hold elections in 2022 and the remaining two (2) districts will be selected to hold elections in 2024.

Next Steps
At the third Public Hearing on January 18, 2022, the City Council will hear from its demographer, Redistricting Partners, about the public feedback received and how draft maps were developed. The City Council will also receive public comments regarding the maps and sequencing.

It is recommended that the City Council choose one map to move forward in the process. Any modifications or changes to the map could be directed to Redistricting Partners for consideration, as long as it meets legal requirements. It is also recommended that the City Council provide direction on a sequencing schedule to correspond with the final map.

At the fourth Public Hearing on February 1, 2022, Redistricting Partners will introduce the draft final map for the City Council’s consideration. The introduction and first reading of the ordinance establishing and implementing by-district elections, including the sequencing schedule, would be held during this meeting. The sequencing direction is determined by the City Council per Elections Code 10010(b).

The fifth and final Public Hearing on February 15, 2022 would involve the City Council holding a second reading of the ordinance. No changes to the map as presented and published can be made at this meeting.

Attachments: 1. Atlas of Draft Maps – Options (Abalone, Bat Ray, Cuttlefish, Dolphin)

2. Current CVRA District Election Timeline

3. Agenda Report – Second Public Hearing (December 21, 2021)

4. Agenda Report – First Public Hearing (December 7, 2021)

5. Agenda Report – Districting Process (November 16, 2021)

6. Agenda Report – Resolution of Intention (November 16, 2021)

7. Resolution of Intention – City of Monterey Resolution No. 21-119 (Adopted November 16, 2021)

8. Informational Flyer - Council District Election Process

9. Communities of Interest Form and Community Mapping Tool Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 90 Attached Spanish Language Translations
Agenda Report – Third Public Hearing (January 18, 2022) Current CVRA District Election Timeline
Agenda Report – Second Public Hearing (December 21, 2021) Agenda Report – First Public Hearing (December 7, 2021) Agenda Report – Districting Process (November 16, 2021) Agenda Report – Resolution of Intention (November 16, 2021) Resolution of Intention – City of Monterey Resolution No. 21-119 (Adopted November 16, 2021) Informational Flyer - Council District Election Process Communities of Interest Form and Community Mapping Tool Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 91 Atlas of Draft Monterey City Council District Maps
City of Monterey, California
December 28, 2021
www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 92 Table of Contents
Draft Plan Abalone ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................... 4 Draft Plan Abalone – District A............................................................................ 5 Draft Plan Abalone – District B............................................................................ 6 Draft Plan Abalone – District C............................................................................ 7 Draft Plan Abalone – District D ........................................................................... 8 Draft Plan Abalone with Neighborhood Overlay................................................... 9 Draft Plan Abalone - Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) Draft Plan Bat Ray........................................................................................................... 10 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................. 11 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District A .......................................................................... 12 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District B .......................................................................... 13 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District C .......................................................................... 14 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District D.......................................................................... 15 Draft Plan Bat Ray with Neighborhood Overlay ................................................. 16 Draft Plan Bat Ray - Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) Draft Plan Cuttlefish ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................. 18 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District A....................................................................... 19 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District B ....................................................................... 20 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District C ....................................................................... 21 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District D....................................................................... 22 Draft Plan Cuttlefish with Neighborhood Overlay .............................................. 23 Draft Plan Cuttlefish - Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) Draft Plan Dolphin........................................................................................................... 24 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................. 25 Draft Plan Dolphin – District A .......................................................................... 26 Draft Plan Dolphin – District B .......................................................................... 27 Draft Plan Dolphin – District C .......................................................................... 28 Draft Plan Dolphin – District D.......................................................................... 29 Draft Plan Dolphin with Neighborhood Overlay ................................................. 30 Draft Plan Dolphin- Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 8, Packet Page 93 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone

Page 3 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 9, Packet Page 94 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone

A B C D
Population 7,750 7,850 7,287 7,403
Deviation 178 278 -285 -169
Deviation % 2.4% 3.7% -3.8% -2.2%
Other 5,571 6,068 4,326 5,438
Other % 71.9% 77.3% 59.4% 73.5%
Latino 1,395 1,027 2,102 1,125
Latino % 18.0% 13.1% 28.8% 15.2%
Asian 607 481 642 625
Asian % 7.8% 6.1% 8.8% 8.4%
Black 177 274 217 215
Black % 2.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.9%
2020 Census

Page 4 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 10, Packet Page 95 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,750 178 2.4% 5,571 71.9% 1,395 18.0% 607 7.8% 177 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,231 4,840 77.7% 783 12.6% 252 4.0% 356 5.7%

Page 5 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 11, Packet Page 96 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,850 278 3.7% 6,068 77.3% 1,027 13.1% 481 6.1% 274 3.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,549 4,493 81.0% 543 9.8% 404 7.3% 109 2.0%

Page 6 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 12, Packet Page 97 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,287 -285 -3.8% 4,326 59.4% 2,102 28.8% 642 8.8% 217 3.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,968 3,499 70.4% 788 15.9% 495 10.0% 186 3.7%

Page 7 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 13, Packet Page 98 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,403 -169 -2.2% 5,438 73.5% 1,125 15.2% 625 8.4% 215 2.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,442 4,317 79.3% 576 10.6% 377 6.9% 172 3.2%

Page 8 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 14, Packet Page 99 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone with neighborhoods

Page 9 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 15, Packet Page 100 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray

Page 10 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 16, Packet Page 101 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray

A B C D
Population 7,852 7,307 7,486 7,645
Deviation 280 -265 -86 73
Deviation % 3.7% -3.5% -1.1% 1.0%
Other 5,784 5,366 5,770 4,483
Other % 73.7% 73.4% 77.1% 58.6%
Latino 1,315 1,166 887 2,281
Latino % 16.7% 16.0% 11.8% 29.8%
Asian 506 581 627 641
Asian % 6.4% 8.0% 8.4% 8.4%
Black 247 194 202 240
Black % 3.1% 2.7% 2.7% 3.1%
2020 Census

Page 11 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 17, Packet Page 102 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,852 280 3.7% 5,784 73.7% 1,315 16.7% 506 6.4% 247 3.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,863 4,405 75.1% 810 13.8% 360 6.1% 288 4.9%

Page 12 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 18, Packet Page 103 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,307 -265 -3.5% 5,366 73.4% 1,166 16.0% 581 8.0% 194 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,319 4,313 81.1% 509 9.6% 291 5.5% 206 3.9%

Page 13 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 19, Packet Page 104 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,486 -86 -1.1% 5,770 77.1% 887 11.8% 627 8.4% 202 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,664 4,668 82.4% 466 8.2% 388 6.9% 142 2.5%

Page 14 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 20, Packet Page 105 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,645 73 1.0% 4,483 58.6% 2,281 29.8% 641 8.4% 240 3.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,344 3,763 70.4% 905 16.9% 489 9.2% 187 3.5%

Page 15 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 21, Packet Page 106 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray with neighborhoods

Page 16 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 22, Packet Page 107 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish

Page 17 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 23, Packet Page 108 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish

A B C D
Population 7,633 7,533 7,808 7,316
Deviation 61 -39 236 -256
Deviation % 0.8% -0.5% 3.1% -3.4%
Other 5,494 5,776 5,629 4,504
Other % 72.0% 76.7% 72.1% 61.6%
Latino 1,375 1,001 1,204 2,069
Latino % 18.0% 13.3% 15.4% 28.3%
Asian 593 484 727 551
Asian % 7.8% 6.4% 9.3% 7.5%
Black 171 272 248 192
Black % 2.2% 3.6% 3.2% 2.6%
2020 Census

Page 18 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 24, Packet Page 109 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,633 61 0.8% 5,494 72.0% 1,375 18.0% 593 7.8% 171 2.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,122 4,751 77.6% 771 12.6% 247 4.0% 353 5.8%

Page 19 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 25, Packet Page 110 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,533 -39 -0.5% 5,776 76.7% 1,001 13.3% 484 6.4% 272 3.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,392 4,337 80.4% 546 10.1% 400 7.4% 109 2.0%

Page 20 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 26, Packet Page 111 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,808 236 3.1% 5,629 72.1% 1,204 15.4% 727 9.3% 248 3.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,536 4,310 77.9% 539 9.7% 496 9.0% 191 3.5%

Page 21 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 27, Packet Page 112 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,316 -256 -3.4% 4,504 61.6% 2,069 28.3% 551 7.5% 192 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,140 3,751 73.0% 834 16.2% 385 7.5% 170 3.3%

Page 22 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 28, Packet Page 113 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish withneighborhoods

Page 23 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 29, Packet Page 114 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin

Page 24 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 30, Packet Page 115 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin

A B C D
Population 7,750 7,745 7,645 7,150
Deviation 178 173 73 -422
Deviation % 2.4% 2.3% 1.0% -5.6%
Other 5,571 5,975 4,483 5,374
Other % 71.9% 77.1% 58.6% 75.2%
Latino 1,395 1,021 2,281 952
Latino % 18.0% 13.2% 29.8% 13.3%
Asian 607 476 641 631
Asian % 7.8% 6.1% 8.4% 8.8%
Black 177 273 240 193
Black % 2.3% 3.5% 3.1% 2.7%
2020 Census

Page 25 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 31, Packet Page 116 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,750 178 2.4% 5,571 71.9% 1,395 18.0% 607 7.8% 177 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,231 4,840 77.7% 783 12.6% 252 4.0% 356 5.7%

Page 26 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 32, Packet Page 117 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,745 173 2.3% 5,975 77.1% 1,021 13.2% 476 6.1% 273 3.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,485 4,430 80.8% 543 9.9% 403 7.3% 109 2.0%

Page 27 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 33, Packet Page 118 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,645 73 1.0% 4,483 58.6% 2,281 29.8% 641 8.4% 240 3.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,344 3,763 70.4% 905 16.9% 489 9.2% 187 3.5%

Page 28 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 34, Packet Page 119 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,150 -422 -5.6% 5,374 75.2% 952 13.3% 631 8.8% 193 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,130 4,116 80.2% 459 8.9% 384 7.5% 171 3.3%

Page 29 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 35, Packet Page 120 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Dolphin with neighborhoods

Page 30 ends

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 36, Packet Page 121 Monterey – Current District-Based Elections Timeline ATTACHMENT 2 Action Citation Publication Deadline Deadline/Mtg. Date Receipt of Demand (starts 45-day safe harbor) EC 10010(e)(3)(A) - Mtg. 9/25/2021 Council Meeting – Closed Session Mtg. 9/26/2021
Council Meeting – Closed Session - - Mtg. 10/19/2021
Council Meeting – Closed Session - - Mtg. 10/27/2021
Council Meeting – Closed Session - - Mtg. 11/2/2021
Council Meeting – Adopt Resolution of Intention – Starts additional 90-Day Safe Harbor
EC 10010(e)(3)(B) - Mtg. 11/16/2021
45-Day Safe Harbor Ends EC 10010(e)(3)(A) - 11/9/2021
Deadline ext. 11/16/2021
per agmt. w/ LULAC
Council Meeting – 1st Public Hearing – overview, demographics, public input1
EC 10010(a)(1)
1st pre-map PH
11/27/2021 Mtg. 12/7/2021
Council Meeting – 2nd Public Hearing – public input on boundaries1 EC 10010(a)(1) 2nd pre-map PH
12/11/2021 Mtg. 12/21/2021
Publish draft maps EC 10010(a)(2)
7 days prior to PH
12/28/2021 -
Council Meeting – Public Appearance – public comment
draft maps, election sequence
- - Mtg. 1/4/2022
Council Meeting – 3rd Public Hearing – public comment
draft maps, election sequence2
EC 10010(a)(2)
1st draft map PH
1/8/2022 Mtg. 1/18/2022
Publish draft map(s) (if revised at or following 3rd Public Hearing) EC 10010(a)(2) 7 days prior to PH
1/25/2022 -
Council Meeting – 4th Public Hearing – public comment draft map, election sequence - Introduce Ordinance for District Elections EC 10010(a)(2)
2nd draft map PH
1/22/2022 Mtg. 2/1/2022
Publish final map (if revised at or following 4th Public Hearing) EC 10010(a)(2) 7 days prior to PH
2/8/2022 -
Council Meeting – 5th Public Hearing – public comment final map, election sequence - Adopt Ordinance for District Elections EC 10010(a) 2/5/2022 Mtg. 2/15/2022
90-Day Safe Harbor Ends EC 10010(e)(3)(B) - 2/14/2022
Deadline ext. 2/16/2022
per agmt. w/ LULAC
Effective Date of Ordinance - 3/17/2022
1 The period between the first and second public hearings cannot be more than 30 days. EC 10010(a)(1) 2 The period between the third and fourth public hearings cannot be more than 45 days. EC 10010(a)(2) Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 37, Packet Page 122 ATTACHMENT 3
City Council
Agenda Report
№12/12
3eFROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Second Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts Before Drawing a Draft Map or Maps (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct the Second Public Hearing to Receive Public Input Regarding the Composition of City Councilmember Districts Before Drawing a Draft Map or Maps.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Conducting multiple public hearings for the implementation of by-district elections is required under State law. The City’s policy is to uphold the federal and California constitutions and to take any steps necessary to ensure equal protection under the law and the right to vote. In addition, this public hearing supports the City Council’s value drivers that includes “maintaining and expanding an environment that solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.” FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Sufficient funds are available for staff and a consultant to conduct this public hearing and additional public engagement efforts to shift from an at-large to district-based election system.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 38, Packet Page 123 ATTACHMENT 3
ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to conduct the public hearing or to postpone this item.

However, this is not recommended, as this second public hearing is required to meet the legal timeline for implementing district-based elections.

DISCUSSION:

A district based election system is one where the City is divided into separate geographical areas making up the districts, and voters residing within the district elect a representative who also resides within the district. On November 16, 2021, the Monterey City Council adopted Resolution 21-119, indicating its intention to convert to a by-district system (see Attachments 4 and 5).

At the first public hearing on district-based elections on December 7, 2021, the City Council voted to establish four councilmember districts and a mayor elected at-large (see Attachment 2).

This approach is consistent with the City’s Charter.

The second public hearing in a series of five public hearings will take place during the Monterey City Council Meeting on December 21, 2021 at 7:00 p.m., with the goal of receiving public input regarding the composition of city councilmember districts before draft map(s) are drawn and presented to the public. At this meeting, City staff and the City’s demographer, Redistricting Partners, will be available to answer questions about the mapping process.

Criteria for Creating Districts
The City must comply with several mandatory criteria when the districts are created. These factors include: population equality across districts (no greater than a 10% deviation), race cannot be the “predominant” factor or criteria when drawing districts, and compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA), which prohibit districts that dilute minority voting rights.

In addition, the California Elections Code requires to the extent practicable that district lines be adopted using the following criteria: geographically contiguous districts, maintaining communities of interest, easily identifiable boundaries, geographical compactness, and boundaries that do not favor or discriminate against a political party. More information is about the criteria for creating districts is explained in the December 7, 2021 Agenda Report (Attachment 2).

Public Hearing and Engagement
To avoid a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit, final maps must be adopted by February 14, 2022, 90 days after adopting the resolution. The public hearing process, with set requirements for each public hearing, is mandated under State law. The current schedule is attached (see Attachment 1).

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 39, Packet Page 124 ATTACHMENT 3
Since early November 2021, the City has been working to educate the public and seek feedback from the community to help plan, draw, and define councilmember districts, and provide feedback on the districting process. The City has launched a website about the districting process on the City’s “Have Your Say Monterey” public engagement portal at haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting. On this portal, the public can learn about the process, ask questions, review the implementation timeline, download “Communities of Interest” forms to submit, draw maps, view draft and proposed district maps when available, and read all public comments submitted to the City.

Other efforts include social media, e-mail blasts, media outreach, live video updates from the City Manager, a postcard mailer to all households, a mapmaking station at the Monterey Public Library, a virtual neighborhood engagement and community workshop, and print advertisements in the Monterey Herald, Monterey County Weekly, and the region’s Spanish-language newspaper, El Sol.

Public hearing notices, agenda reports, and essential documents are also available and have been published in Spanish, in accordance with State law.

Next Steps
After the second Public Hearing on December 21, 2021, the City’s mapping consultant, Districting Partners, will prepare draft maps for consideration. No later than December 28, 2021, these draft maps will be published at haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting and physically posted at the agenda posting board putside the City Council Chamber (580 Pacific Street), as well as the windows to the front entrances of the Monterey Public Library (625 Pacific Street), El Estero Park Center (777 Pearl Street), Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center (735 Ramona Street), and Scholze Park Center (280 Dickman Avenue).

The third Public Hearing will be held on January 4, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber (Few Memorial Hall of Records), Monterey City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, and virtually on ZoomGov.

Attachments: 1. Current CVRA District Election Timeline

2. Agenda Report – First Public Hearing (December 7, 2021)

3. Agenda Report – Districting Process (November 16, 2021)

4. Agenda Report – Resolution of Intention (November 16, 2021)

5. Resolution of Intention – City of Monterey Resolution No. 21-119 (Adopted November 16, 2021)

6. Informational Flyer - Council District Election Process / Proceso de Elecciones de los Distritos del Consejo

7. Communities of Interest Form and Community Mapping Tool Attached Spanish Language Translations
Agenda Report – Second Public Hearing (December 21, 2021) Current CVRA District Election Timeline
Agenda Report – First Public Hearing (December 7, 2021) Agenda Report – Districting Process (November 16, 2021) Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 40, Packet Page 125 ATTACHMENT 3
Agenda Report – Resolution of Intention (November 16, 2021) Resolution of Intention – City of Monterey Resolution No. 21-119 (Adopted November 16, 2021) Informational Flyer - Proceso de Elecciones de los Distritos del Consejo Communities of Interest Form and Community Mapping Tool Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 41, Packet Page 126 ATTACHMENT 4
City Council
Agenda Report
№12/12
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: First Public Hearing for the Transition from At-Large Elections to By-District Elections (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct the First Public Hearing for the Transition from At-Large Elections to By-District Elections.

Staff recommends that the City Council establish four (4) councilmember districts and retain an at-large Mayor, for a total of five (5) members serving on the Monterey City Council. This approach keeps the existing structure of the City Council intact and a charter amendment would not be required.

Direction to change to the number of elective officers or to change the term of office for the mayor would require a charter amendment. Given the tight timeline to convert to district based elections in order to receive the benefit of capping the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs that are recoverable by a prospective plaintiff under the California Voting Rights Act, a charter amendment is not recommended at this time.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Conducting multiple public hearings for the implementation of by-district elections is required under State law. The City’s policy is to uphold the federal and California constitutions and to take any steps necessary to ensure equal protection under the law and the right to vote. In addition, this public hearing supports the City Council’s value drivers that includes “maintaining and expanding an environment that solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.” FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Sufficient funds are available for staff and a consultant to conduct this public hearing and additional public engagement efforts to shift from an at-large to district-based election system.

Staff estimates the cost for this unbudgeted and unplanned work program to range between $75,000 and $100,000, excluding staff time.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 42, Packet Page 127 ATTACHMENT 4
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to conduct the public hearing or to postpone this item.

However, this is not recommended, as this first public hearing is required to meet the legal timeline for implementing district-based elections.

DISCUSSION:

At-large voting systems may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of minorities, thereby defeating the choices of minority voters.

The City’s Charter does not mandate an at-large election system; however, it does specify the number of elective officers, i.e., a Mayor and four Councilmembers, and the terms of office for each: two years and four years, respectively. (Charter sections 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1.) On November 16, 2021, the Monterey City Council adopted Resolution 21-119, indicating its intention to convert to a by-district system in the furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act.

This is the first public hearing in a series of five that will take place over the next few months.

City staff, along with the City’s mapping and districting consultant, Redistricting Partners, will provide a recap of the by-district election conversion, further describe community outreach efforts, and seek public feedback on the districting process.

Number of Councilmember Districts
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to start the districting process with four councilmember districts and a mayor elected at-large. Not only is this approach consistent with the City’s Charter, it should ensure fair representation, with districts that are contiguous and compact, and with communities of interest that are kept together whenever possible.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 43, Packet Page 128 ATTACHMENT 4
In California, general law cities are required to conduct elections in accordance with the Elections Code, while charter cities may establish their own rules and regulations for elections depending on their charter provisions. (The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2021, Section 3.1 at p. 267.)
Ordinarily a system of electing the city council by district must be established by an ordinance that is approved by the voters. The ordinance may be a city council initiated ballot measure or an initiative measure. (Government Code section 34871.) In 2017, AB 2220 was enacted as a cost savings measure for jurisdictions facing possible litigation under the California Voting Rights Act and to facilitate transitions to by district election systems. (Government Code section 34886.) AB 2220 amended the Government Code to allow cities to adopt an ordinance requiring the city council to be elected by district without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters. It provides:

Notwithstanding Section 34871 or any other law, the legislative body of a city may adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor, as described in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 34871, without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters for approval. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements and criteria of Section 21601 or 21621 of the Elections Code, as applicable, and include a declaration that the change in the method of electing members of the legislative body is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025) of Division 14 of the Elections Code.)
According to the legislative history for AB 2220, “[t]his bill seeks to regulate the manner in which municipal officers are elected. It is not clear whether this bill would apply to charter cities.

According to the League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, if the charter of a charter city contains provisions that contradict this bill, the charter would take precedence. Conversely, if a city charter does not specify elections procedures or contain language stating that state elections laws shall govern that city’s elections, the provisions of this bill would apply.” (Assembly Committee on Local Government Analysis, May 3, 2016.) Here, the City’s charter authorizes the City to “exercise any right, power, or privilege granted to municipal corporations by the general laws of the State of California.” (Charter section 1.4.) This means that the City’s charter authorizes it to use the process to convert to by district elections under the Government Code as long as it would not otherwise be inconsistent with other charter provisions. The charter does not elsewhere specify the City’s method of elections; it only specifies the number of elective officers and their terms. Therefore, although there is no case law on point, the City arguably may convert to district based elections that maintain its existing City Council structure without a charter amendment. A charter amendment adopted by a vote of the people is recommended for any change to the number of elective officers or their terms.

A shift from at-large elections to district-based elections is already a drastic change in the City’s governance model, since councilmembers have been elected at-large for 171 years. Future Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 44, Packet Page 129 ATTACHMENT 4
considerations for a discussion regarding increasing the number of elective officers in the City or changing the term of the mayor’s seat are whether more districts result in better representation, create the potential for less voter influence, and/or are able to retain communities of interest, among other important considerations.

Criteria for Creating Districts
The City Council welcomes and encourages feedback from the community on the composition of the yet-to-be-formed voting districts. There are several mandatory criteria that the City must comply with when the districts are created:
a) Population equality across districts (districts shall be nearly as equal in population). b) Race cannot be the “predominant” factor or criteria when drawing districts. c) Compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA), which, among other things, prohibits districts that dilute minority voting rights, and encourages a majority-minority district, if the minority group is sufficiently large, and such a district can be drawn without race being the predominant factor.

In addition, the California Elections Code requires to the extent practicable that district lines compliant with the Federal Voting Rights Act and be adopted using the following criteria, in the following order of priority:

1. Geographically contiguous districts (each city council district should share a common border with the next). Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.

2. To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

3. Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.

4. To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

5. The council shall not adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.

Mapping criteria has recently changed with the enactment of the Fair Maps Act, which became effective January 1, 2020. It specifies new criteria and deadlines for cities to adopt new district Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 45, Packet Page 130 ATTACHMENT 4
boundaries. Although this law also specifies new timelines for redistricting, those do not apply to a city that is adopting districts for the first time, including when a city adopts council districts for the purpose of transitioning from electing its council members in at-large elections to district based elections. (Elections Code section 21625(e).)
Public Hearing and Engagement Timeline
To avoid a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit, final maps must be adopted by February 14, 2022, 90 days after adopting the resolution. The public hearing process, with set requirements for each public hearing, is mandated under State law. The tentative schedule is attached (see Attachment A). Although the City could request an extension from LULAC for up to 90 additional days, staff believes that the State’s intention is to conduct this effort in a swift manner and that the public hearing and engagement work does not require an extension request at this time. Furthermore, City staff have other priority work (e.g., retail cannabis policy, affordable housing, etc.) to complete in early 2022.

The following is a tentative schedule for public hearings, to be heard as required by State law for adoption of the final district maps and the transition to district-based elections:
● Dec. 7, 2021 Regular Meeting: First Hearing
Council and the community receive an overview of the process and information on how to provide feedback on “communities of interest” and how to propose maps. Public provides input.
● Dec. 21, 2021 Regular Meeting: Second Hearing
Council receives further feedback from the community regarding communities of interest. ● Dec. 28, 2022: First Maps Published
Demographer (City consultant) provides three map options for the City Council to consider and provide feedback on a final map. City publishes the maps at least seven days prior to Jan. 4, 2022 third hearing.
● Jan. 4, 2022 Regular Meeting: Third Hearing
Council reviews proposed maps, election sequence, and receives public input. ● Jan. 11, 2022: Revised Maps Published (if applicable) City publishes the maps at least seven days prior to Jan. 18, 2022 fourth hearing. ● Jan. 18, 2022 Regular Meeting: Fourth Hearing on Final Map, Introduce Ordinance Council reviews final map and election sequence, receives public input. ● Jan. 25, 2022: Final Map Published (if applicable)
City publishes at least seven days prior to Feb. 1, 2022 final hearing. ● Feb. 1, 2022 Regular Meeting: Fifth Hearing, Adopt Map and Ordinance for District Elections
Council receives public input on map and election sequence, votes on map and ordinance establishing district-based elections.
● February 14, 2022: Deadline to hold all public hearings Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 46, Packet Page 131 ATTACHMENT 4
This is 90 days after resolution adoption.

Pursuant to the California Elections Code, “…the public hearing shall begin at a fixed time regardless of its order on the agenda, except that the council may first conclude any item being discussed or acted upon, including any associated public comment, when that time occurs.” These public hearings will take place at 7:00 p.m.

District Mapping and Public Feedback Process
Under State law, cities are prohibited from drawing a draft map or maps of proposed council boundaries until after the first public hearing is held.

The City seeks feedback from the community to help plan, draw, and define councilmember districts. City staff and consultants will ask the public to:
● Share their feedback
● Define their neighborhood or community of interest
● Submit draft maps
● Share feedback on draft maps
● Connect with their fellow community members about district process and why it matters In addition to social media engagement tools, the City has launched a webpage on the district and mapping process on the City’s public engagement portal Have Your Say Monterey, located at: www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting with links available from the City’s main website, www.monterey.org.

This website includes information about how feedback can be given to the City, the calendar of public hearing dates, recording or written summaries of each public workshop, each draft map considered by the council, and the adopted final map.

In addition to public hearings, the State requires information on redistricting to be provided in “any language that is spoken by a group of city residents with a limited English proficiency who constitute 3 percent or more of the city’s total population over four years of age for whom language can be determined.” Per the California Secretary of State, the City of Monterey must also provide this information to residents in Spanish. Of the population 5 years of age or older,

3.6% are Spanish-language speakers who speak English less than “very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Public Hearing notices will be published in Spanish. The City will make information available in Spanish and encourage non-English-speaking communities to participate in the mapping process.

The summary of outreach efforts initiated by the City are summarized below:
● Have Your Say Monterey - Public Engagement Portal. The City has launched a project on the City’s “Have Your Say Monterey” public engagement portal at haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting. On this portal, the public can learn about the process, ask questions, review the implementation timeline, download “Communities of Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 47, Packet Page 132 ATTACHMENT 4
Interest” forms to submit, draw maps, and read all public comments submitted to the City. Residents will be able to download “mapping kits,” use the online mapping tool, and learn more about how to submit their own maps.
● Online Citizen Mapping Tool. The City is exploring online software that enables members of the public to draw and submit maps for consideration. Due to demand for these tools among local governments, the software may not be available. This tool would cost $8,000 if implemented.
● Social Media and E-Mail Blasts. Districting information will continue to be shared as part of the City’s digital engagement strategy: The City has over 12,700 followers on Twitter, 32,000 followers on Facebook, and over 2,000 email subscribers. ● Mornings with the Manager. Updates will be shared every three weeks during the City Manager’s updates on YouTube Live, watched by hundreds of viewers each month. ● Media Outreach. The City will continue to share information via press releases and during weekly media briefings with public radio, newspaper, and broadcast news outlets. ● Postcard Mailer to All Households. A postcard mailer is being mailed to all City residents (approximately 15,000) households.
● Mapmaking Station. In mid-December, the City will provide a mapmaking station at the Monterey Public Library where residents can pick up a kit where they can draw their own maps (placemats), submit “Communities of Interest Forms,” and share other feedback for consideration.
● Neighborhood Engagement & Community Workshop. On December 9, 2021, City staff will be hosting an informational workshop on how citizens can learn about the districting process, submit Community of Interest Forms, as well as draw and submit their own maps. Neighborhood associations are being encouraged to further engage with their residents about the process.
● Print Advertisements and Flyers. The City will also spend up to $5,000 on advertisements in the Monterey Herald, Monterey County Weekly, and the region’s Spanish-language newspaper, El Sol. In addition, flyers will be posted at community spaces, including the library, community centers, and the Monterey Sports Center.

Next Steps
At its Public Hearing on December 7, 2021, the City Council will be asked by Staff to confirm that the mapping process should focus on four (4) councilmember districts and an at-large Mayor, for a total of five (5) members serving on the Monterey City Council, and not on a charter amendment.

City staff, along with the City’s mapping and districting consultant, Redistricting Partners, will provide a recap of the by-district election conversion process on December 7, 2021. A second public hearing will be held on December 21, 2021.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 48, Packet Page 133 ATTACHMENT 4
Attachment: 1. Current CVRA District Election Timeline
Attached Spanish Language Translations
Agenda Report
Current CVRA District Election Timeline
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 49, Packet Page 134 ATTACHMENT 5 City Council
Agenda Report
№12/12
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on the Districting Process to Convert from an At-Large Method of Election to a By-District System (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on the process to convert from an at-large method of election to a by-district system.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s value drivers includes “maintaining and expanding an environment that solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.” A presentation on the process by which the City could convert from an at-large method of election to a by-district system would help foster community education and engagement on an important topic that affects the City’s governance.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Sufficient funds are available for staff and a consultant to conduct mapping and public engagement work on the shifting from at-large to district-based election system.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to receive the presentation. However, this is not recommended as it is a best practice for the community to learn about the districting process before public hearings and the mapping process begins.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 50, Packet Page 135 ATTACHMENT 5
DISCUSSION:

Conversion Process Timeline
Should the Monterey City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to Transition from At-Large to District-Based Elections, the City Council will need to conduct a series of public hearings concerning to-be-drafted district boundaries. It will be important for the City Council to receive public feedback and public comment through public hearings, and other engagement efforts.

If the City Council adopts the Resolution of Intention to Transition from At-Large to DistrictBased Elections at its meeting on November 16, 2021, to avoid a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit, final maps must be adopted by February 14, 2022, 90 days after adopting the resolution. The public hearing process, with set requirements for each public hearing, is mandated under State law. The goal of these hearings is to identify the neighborhoods, “communities of interest,” and other factors that can be used as factors for when the drawing of draft maps begins. During the public hearing and community feedback process, the public is invited to propose complete districting maps.

The following is a tentative schedule for public hearings, to be heard as required by State law for adoption of the final district maps and the transition to district-based elections:
 Nov. 16, 2021 Regular Meeting: Monterey City Council considers adopting Resolution of Intention to Transition from At-Large to District-Based Elections Monterey City Council also receives presentation on the conversion process.  Dec. 7, 2021 Regular Meeting: First Hearing
Council and the community receives overview of the process and information on how to provide feedback on “communities of interest” and how to propose maps. Public provides input.
 Dec. 21, 2021 Regular Meeting: Second Hearing
Council receives further feedback from the community regarding communities of interest.  Dec. 28, 2022: First Maps Published
Demographer (City consultant) provides three map options for the City Council to consider and provide feedback on a final map. City publishes at least seven days prior to Jan. 4, 2022 third hearing.
 Jan. 4, 2022 Regular Meeting: Third Hearing
Council reviews proposed maps, election sequence, and receives public input.  Jan. 11, 2022: Revised Maps Published (if applicable) City publishes at least seven days prior to Jan. 18, 2022 fourth hearing.  Jan. 18, 2022 Regular Meeting: Fourth Hearing on Final Map, Introduce Ordinance Council reviews final map and election sequence, receives public input.  Jan. 25, 2022: Final Map Published (if applicable)
City publishes at least seven days prior to Feb. 1, 2022 final hearing.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 51, Packet Page 136 ATTACHMENT 5
 Feb. 1, 2022 Regular Meeting: Fifth Hearing , Adopt Map and Ordinance for District Elections
Council receives public input on map and election sequence, votes on map and ordinance establishing district-based elections.
 February 14, 2022: Deadline to hold all public hearings This is 90 days after resolution adoption.

Criteria for Creating Districts
The City Council will welcome and encourage feedback from the community on the composition of the yet-to-be-formed voting districts. There are several mandatory criteria that the City must comply with when the districts are created:
a) Population equality across districts (districts shall be nearly as equal in population). b) Race cannot be the “predominant” factor or criteria when drawing districts. c) Compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA), which, among other things, prohibits districts that dilute minority voting rights, and encourages a majority-minority district, if the minority group is sufficiently large, and such a district can be drawn without race being the predominant factor.

In addition, the California Elections Code requires to the extent practicable, that district lines compliant with the Federal Voting Rights Act and be adopted using the following criteria, in the following order of priority:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 52, Packet Page 137 ATTACHMENT 5

5. The council shall not adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.

Mapping criteria has recently changed with the enactment of the Fair Maps Act, which became effective January 1, 2020. It specifies new criteria and deadlines for cities to adopt new district boundaries. Although this law also specifies new timelines for redistricting, those do not apply to a city that is adopting districts for the first time, including when a city adopts council districts for the purpose of transitioning from electing its council members in at-large elections to district based elections. (Elections Code section 21625(e).)
District Mapping and Public Feedback Process
Under State law, cities are prohibited from drawing a draft map or maps of proposed council boundaries until after the first public hearing is held. After the City of Monterey’s first public hearing on December 7, 2021, the City’s demographic and mapping consultant, Redistricting Partners, can begin to draw maps based on feedback from the community.

As stated above, the criteria for the final council district boundaries is prescriptive, requiring districts to be nearly equal in population, geographically contiguous, respectful of “communities of interest,” be easily identifiable by residents, and is geographically compact. In any community, including Monterey, this is no small feat given the diversity of Monterey’s geographical features, neighborhoods, and boundaries. Monterey is comprised of 30,218 residents (2020 Census) across 16 defined neighborhoods (with their own associations), features significant military populations on U.S. Army and U.S. Navy property, and is home to families, students, and other special populations.

Between late November and the end of December 2021, the City is expected to solicit feedback from the community to help plan, draw, and define councilmember districts. City staff and consultants will ask the public to:
 Share their feedback
 Define their neighborhood or community of interest
 Submit draft maps
 Share feedback on draft maps
 Connect with their fellow community members about district process and why it matters In addition to our social media engagement tools, the City has launched a webpage on the district and mapping process on the City’s public engagement portal Have Your Say Monterey, located at: www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting with links available from the City’s main website, www.monterey.org.

This website will also include information about how feedback can be given to the City, the calendar of public hearing dates, recording or written summaries of each public workshop, each Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 53, Packet Page 138 ATTACHMENT 5
draft map considered by the council, and the adopted final map. Our most recent experience during the commercial cannabis public outreach process has proven that the interactive Have Your Say Monterey web portal is a successful method of community engagement.

Next Steps
City staff, along with the City’s mapping and districting consultant, Redistricting Partners, will deliver a presentation on November 16, 2021 on the by-district election conversion process.

Staff and the consultant will be on hand to answer any questions from the City Council and public. Staff encourages the public to visit www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting to stay informed and engaged about the topic.

The next public meeting is expected to take place on December 7, 2021 when the first public hearing is held. At that time, the City Council and the community will receive another overview of the process and specific information on how to provide feedback on “communities of interest” and how to propose maps.

Attachment: 1. Draft CVRA District Election Timeline
Attached Spanish Language Translations
Agenda Report
Draft CVRA District Election Timeline
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 54, Packet Page 139 ATTACHMENT 6 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Transition from At-Large to District Based Elections Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10010(e)(3)(A) (Not a Project under CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution of intention to transition from at-large to district based elections for City Councilmembers. The proposed resolution does not direct changing the structure of the City Council; it would start the process to implement four districts in the City for Councilmember seats, with the Mayor’s seat continuing to be elected at-large.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s policy is to uphold the federal and California constitutions and to take any steps necessary to ensure equal protection under the law and the right to vote.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Significant staff time will be needed to transition to district based elections, including multiple public hearings to determine district boundaries and to draft a proposed ordinance establishing districts. Demographer costs for drafting multiple maps, assisting with public outreach, and analyzing public input is estimated to be $42,000. There may be a need to consult with outside legal counsel, adding additional costs. These expenses are not included in the FY 2021/2022 budget.

Under a relatively new law enacted in 2016, if the City makes a decision to transition to a district based election system by November 16, 2021, it would cap the City’s exposure to the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), District 12 (Monterey, San Benito, and Merced counties) for its attorneys’ fees and costs at $30,000 (adjusted for CPI annually starting in 2018 per AB 350). (Elections Code section 10010(f)(3).)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 55, Packet Page 140 ATTACHMENT 6
this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

One alternative is to change the number of proposed districts (i.e., six or eight districts) with an at-large Mayor.

Another alternative is to transition away from an at-large elected Mayor and have five, seven, or nine districts. For example, there could be five districts in the City and the Mayor chosen from amongst the five councilmembers.

Finally, the City Council could choose not to adopt the resolution of intention, maintain an atlarge election system, and defend its election system in court.

DISCUSSION:

Election Systems
The City of Monterey currently utilizes an at-large election system. This means that all voters, no matter where they live in the City, have a say in electing every member of the City Council.

At-large voting systems may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of minorities, thereby defeating the choices of minority voters.

Demand to Switch to District Based Elections System
On September 25, 2021, the City received a demand from LULAC to switch to district based elections. (Attachment 1.) LULAC alleges that it studied the City’s demographics and election results, “…and determined that a violation of the California Elections Code section 14025 et. seq., known as the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) may be occurring by polarized voting.” LULAC would not share its racially polarized voting analysis with the City, and the letter does not contain sufficient evidence to support the claimed CVRA violation. However, this letter is a precursor to LULAC filing a lawsuit against the City under the CVRA, and it triggers a very short timeline for the City to act and implement districts to avoid substantial attorneys’ fees.

The City Council met in closed session on September 29, 2021, October 19, 2021, October 27, 2021, and November 3, 2021 to consider this threatened litigation.

The California Voting Rights Act
The City must comply with both the federal Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act. Both statues prohibit the City from imposing election systems that result in discrimination against minorities.

The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (“CVRA”) was enacted to implement the California constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the right to vote. (Elections Code section 14031.) The CVRA is based on the federal Voting Rights Act, but the legal standards are Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 56, Packet Page 141 ATTACHMENT 6
different. The CVRA’s intent is to expand the protections provided under federal law. Its adoption was motivated in part by the lack of success by California plaintiffs in challenging atlarge election systems under the federal Voting Rights Act. Thus, the CVRA purposefully adopted a lower legal standard to make it easier to establish a voting rights claim.

Racially Polarized Voting
The CVRA requires a plaintiff to prove “racially polarized voting,” which means “…voting in which there is a difference, as defined in case law regarding enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act… in the choices of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class as compared to the rest of the electorate.” (Elections Code section 14026(e).)
It must be shown that “a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates” (minority cohesion); and that “the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”(Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) 478 U.S. 30.)
What this means, for example, is if a White majority outvotes the Latinx choice of candidates most of the time, even if the Latinx voters tend to congregate around the same candidate, there is racially polarized voting. Note that the Latinx candidate need not be a minority candidate.

Vote Dilution
The CVRA prohibits an at-large election system if it dilutes the rights of voters who are members of a protected class. “An at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class….” (Elections Code section 14027.) A protected class for purposes of the CVRA is a class of voters who are members of a race, color, or language minority group. (Elections Code section 14026(d).) Creating districts may facilitate a minority group’s ability to elect its preferred representatives.

The question of vote dilution is whether a minority group would have more influence in elections under an alternate election system than they do under the current system.

Under federal law, a voter dilution analysis is a bright line test. It must be shown that a minority group is large enough and compact enough that it would account for a majority of voters in a hypothetical district. That is, if a city has a minority population that could be 51% of a reasonably drawn district, then that district should be drawn under federal law if there is racially polarized voting. This 51% test under federal law is not a required element under the CVRA; it is instead a “factor in determining an appropriate remedy.” (Elections Code section 14028.) Therefore, something less than 50% is sufficient to show voter dilution, but how low can that percentage be? The trial court in the Santa Monica case found that creating a district with 30% minority voting age population was enough to show that the system would be better for that minority population than Santa Monica’s at-large system. The court of appeal disagreed with the trial court and ruled that the plaintiff in the Santa Monica case had not shown voter dilution since 30% is not enough to win a majority and elect someone. The court stated that “…there was no dilution because the result with one voting system is the same as the result with the other: no Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 57, Packet Page 142 ATTACHMENT 6
representation.” This case is now pending before the California Supreme Court in City of Santa Monica v. Pico Neighborhood Association (Case No. S263972). The court has posed the question “What must a plaintiff prove in order to establish vote dilution under the [CVRA]?” It is anticipated that the answer to that question by the court will provide much needed guidance on how to evaluate the merits of CVRA claims. Short of that guidance, many cities are abandoning at-large election systems based on the uncertainty of the application of the CVRA and the potential economic consequences.

Litigation Costs
Staff’s recommendation to approve the resolution is not based on an admission by the City that a court would find its election system violates the CVRA. Rather, the public interest may be better served by voluntarily transitioning to district based elections for a number of reasons, including the uncertainty of the litigation and the extraordinary costs of such a lawsuit even if the City were to prevail.

The probability of success defending a CVRA claim on the merits is uncertain without guidance from the California Supreme Court. This is due to the absence of clear objective standards on how a plaintiff is supposed to prove a case and how a city is to defend it. There is very little precedent regarding the CVRA’s application, including the elements of a violation and how they are applied to cities, especially to cities like Monterey where the protected class population may not be sufficiently large or compact.

If the City Council chooses to maintain at-large elections and defend the threatened lawsuit, attorneys’ fees and costs would likely exceed several million dollars. The cost of defending the City’s at-large election system in court is projected to be significant due to the potential of having to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to the City’s defense costs.

Almost all cities that have received a legal challenge have settled out of court by agreeing to voluntarily change to district based elections. Those that have opposed the CVRA challenges in court have ultimately either voluntarily adopted, or have been forced to adopt, district based elections. Cities that have litigated the CVRA have resulted in large attorneys’ fees payments.

For example, in the Santa Monica case, plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees dated June 3, 2019 requested more than $22 million be paid by the City of Santa Monica. Another recent example is the Yumori-Kaku v. City of Santa Clara case, where Santa Clara settled a challenge to its election system in April 2021 after losing on appeal. Santa Clara agreed to pay $6 million ($4.5 million to plaintiff and $1.5 million on its own outside counsel fees).

Districting Procedure
Staff and a demographer from the consulting firm Redistricting Partners, LP, will give a presentation on the required procedure and rules for transitioning to a district based election system. There are a number of factors to consider in the mapping process to ensure that the districts are reasonable and constitutional.

The City has 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention to adopt an ordinance that will implement the change with the next election. (Elections Code section 10010(e)(3)(A)-(B).) As authorized by statute, LULAC may be willing to extend this deadline by another 90 days in order to provide more time for public outreach and input.

Will Councilmembers lose their seats during their term? Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 58, Packet Page 143 ATTACHMENT 6
Councilmembers will not lose their seats during their term. Pursuant to Elections Code section 21626, the term of any councilmember who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which they were elected.

The City Council is comprised of the Mayor and four councilmembers. (Charter section 4.1.) Councilmembers are elected at each General Municipal Election and hold office for a four year term. (Id.) The Mayor is elected at each general municipal election and holds office for a two year term. (Charter section 3.1.) The current terms expire as follows:

Mayor Clyde Roberson, December 2022
Vice Mayor Tyller Williamson, December 2022
Councilmember Ed Smith, December 2022
Councilmember Dan Albert, December 2024
Councilmember Alan Haffa, December 2024
A potential sequence for establishing districts will be developed through the public hearing process. All city councilmembers serve at-large and can live anywhere in the city until the end of their terms in 2022 and 2024.

An election year will be assigned to each of the districts. For example, two districts could be assigned to the November 2022 election, and two other districts could be assigned to the 2024 election. Then, in 2022 and 2024, incumbents would have to run for re-election by-district, if they reside in one of the districts up for election that year, or finish their terms and leave the Council.

The Mayor’s seat will continue to be at-large unless a different system is proposed by the City Council.

Is a Charter Amendment Required?
The legislature has authorized the change from at-large elections to district elections without taking the matter to the voters. Government Code section 34886 provides:

The Charter specifies that there are four councilmembers, and so there will be four districts with an at-large elected Mayor. Therefore, a charter amendment would not be required to switch to district elections with four districts and an at-large mayor, and if the terms of office remain the same.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 59, Packet Page 144 ATTACHMENT 6
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Letter from LULAC
Attached Spanish Language Translations
Agenda Report
Resolution
Letter from LULAC
cc: LULAC, District 12
Neighborhood Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 60, Packet Page 145 RESOLUTION NO. 21-119 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

INTENTION TO INTIATE PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING

AND IMPLEMENTING DISTRICT BASED ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey is a charter city, duly organized under the constitution and the laws of the State of California;
WHEREAS, four members of the Monterey City Council are currently elected in at-large elections, in which each City Council member is elected by registered voters of the entire City, with the mayor being separately elected by registered voters of the entire City, pursuant to California Government Code sections 34871 and 34900 et seq., and Charter sections 2.1 and

4.1;
WHERAS, Government Code section 34886 authorizes any city to change to a district based system with an elective mayor without the need to put such a change to the voters; WHERAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to move from its current at-large elections system to a by-district elections system for members of the City Council in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act; WHERAS, the City intends to transition from an at-large system to a by-district system in accordance with the procedural rules outlined in Government Code section 34886 and Elections Code section 10010;
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2021, the City received a demand from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), District 12 (Monterey, San Benito, and Merced counties), to switch to district based elections;
WHEREAS, LULAC alleges that it studied the City’s demographics and election results, “…and determined that a violation of the California Elections Code section 14025 et. seq., known as the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) may be occurring by polarized voting”;
WHEREAS, LULAC did not share its polarized voting analysis with the City, and the letter does not contain sufficient evidence to support the claimed CVRA violation. LULAC extended the City’s safe harbor under Elections Code section 10010(f)(3) until November 16, 2021;
WHEREAS, adoption of this resolution is not based on an admission by the City that a court would find its election system violates the CVRA. Rather, the public interest may be better served by voluntarily transitioning to district based elections for a number of reasons, including the uncertainty of the litigation and the extraordinary costs of such a lawsuit even if the City were to prevail;
DocuSign Envelope ID: AE29B494-A943-44D9-A8C6-E95686738E31 ATTACHMENT 7
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 61, Packet Page 146 2 WHEREAS, the probability of success defending a CVRA claim on the merits is uncertain without guidance from the California Supreme Court. This is due to the absence of clear objective standards on how a plaintiff is supposed to prove a case and how a city is to defend it. There is very little precedent regarding the CVRA’s application, including the elements of a violation and how they are applied to cities, especially to cities like Monterey where the protected class population may not be sufficiently large or compact; WHERAS, the anticipated decision from the California Supreme Court in the Santa Monica case would benefit the City in making a decision to change its elections system. The City’s demographics contain fewer minority populations than in the City of Santa Monica, and the City Council is concerned that district based elections may not benefit, and may be worse, for protected class populations since they may not be sufficiently large or geographically compact in the City. The City’s policy is to uphold the federal and California constitutions and to take any steps necessary to ensure equal protection under the law and the right to vote; WHEREAS, the City will begin working with Redistricting Partners, LP, to assist the City in establishing maps for district based elections;
WHEREAS, before drawing a draft map of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City will hold at least two public hearings over no more than 30 days, at which time the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts; WHEREAS, the City will then publish and make available for release at least one draft map of the new electoral districting, including the potential sequence of elections shown; WHEREAS, once the draft map has been publicized for at least seven days, the City will hold at least two additional public hearings, over no more than 45 days, at which time the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map and the proposed sequence of elections prior to the public hearing at which the City Council adopts a map; WHEREAS, if a draft map is revised at or following a public hearing, the revised map will be published and made available to the public at least seven days before the City chooses to adopt it;
WHERAS, in determining the final sequence of staggered district elections, the City Council will give special consideration to the purposes of the CVRA, and will take into account the preferences expressed by the members of the districts; WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to adopt criteria to guide the establishment of electoral districts consistent with legal requirements including reasonable equal population and Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as other concerns and considerations important to the City;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities DocuSign Envelope ID: AE29B494-A943-44D9-A8C6-E95686738E31 ATTACHMENT 7
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 62, Packet Page 147 3 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The City Council hereby resolves, pursuant to Elections Code section 10010, its intention to adopt a by-district election system by ordinance as authorized by California Government Code section 34886.

3. The City Council resolves to retain a qualified demographer, hold at least five public hearings, and publish at least one draft map and staggering sequence.

4. The City’s demographer, acting under the supervision of the City Manager, is hereby authorized to direct and formulate one or more electoral district scenarios for review by the public and the City Council at two or more public hearings, in accordance with the City’s proposed timeline.

5. Working with the demographer, City staff is directed to publicize relevant maps, information, notices, agendas, and other materials regarding by-district elections and to establish a means of communication to answer questions from the public.

6. The City Manager is authorized to take any and all other necessary actions to give effect to this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 16th day of November, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: AE29B494-A943-44D9-A8C6-E95686738E31 ATTACHMENT 7
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 63, Packet Page 148

HAVE YOUR SAY
December 7, 2021 - 1st
Public Hearing – Overview,
demographics, public input
December 9 - Community
Information Meeting - How
to Give Feedback on
Councilmember Districts
December 21 - 2nd Public
Hearing – Public input on
boundaries
December 28 - Publish
draft maps
January 4, 2022 - 3rd Public
Hearing – Public comment
on draft maps and election
sequence/timeline
January 18 - 4th Public
Hearing - Public comment,
draft maps, elections
sequence/timeline;
introduce ordinance
January 25 - Publish final
map
February 1 - 5th Public
Hearing - Public comment
final map, elections
sequence/timeline;
adopt ordinance
March 3 - Effective date of
ordinance

DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS
The City of Monterey encourages your participation to help create a districtbased election system. (Watch for a postcard coming in the mail as a reminder.) Stay informed and attend the scheduled public hearings. Residents will have opportunities to:
1) SUBMIT A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST FORM; and
2) DRAW DRAFT DISTRICT MAPS
The City will host a virtual community information meeting on December 9 to explain how to give feedback. Zoom links and details will be posted at haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting, and a mapping station will be available at the Monterey Public Library, 625 Pacific Street.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
City of Monterey, CA - Dec 3, 2021

COUNCIL DISTRICT ELECTION PROCESS
On November 16, 2021, the Monterey City Council
adopted a resolution of intent to convert to a
district-based election system. Now the work
begins to make that happen. Background
documents, public comments, agenda reports,
meeting minutes, and draft maps and timelines
for review will be included in meeting agenda
reports, and posted on Have Your Say Monterey,
the City's engagement portal, at
haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting.

SCHEDULE OF

PUBLIC HEARINGS
haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
City Manager's Office (831) 646-3760 [email protected] monterey.org Photo by John Ruddock, High Orbit Media

DATES MAY CHANGE OVERVIEW
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 64, Packet Page 149 7 de diciembre de 2021 - 1ª
audiencia pública: Descripción
general, datos demográficos y
comentarios del público
9 de diciembre - Reunión de
información comunitaria: Cómo
dar su opinión sobre los
distritos de concejales
21 de diciembre - 2ª audiencia
pública: Comentarios del
público sobre los límites
28 de diciembre - Publicación
de mapas preliminares
4 de enero de 2022 - 3ª
audiencia pública: Comentarios
públicos sobre los mapas
preliminares y la
secuencia/cronograma de las
elecciones
18 de enero - 4ª audiencia
pública: Comentarios públicos,
mapas preliminares,
secuencia/cronograma de las
elecciones; introducir
ordenanza
25 de enero - Publicación del
mapa final
1 de febrero - 5ª audiencia
pública: Comentarios públicos
sobre el mapa final,
secuencia/cronograma de las
elecciones; adoptar ordenanza
3 de marzo - Fecha de entrada
en vigor de la ordenanza

ELECCIONES DISTRITALES
La Ciudad de Monterey alienta su participación para ayudar a crear un sistema electoral distrital. (Recibirá una postal por correo como recordatorio).

Manténgase informado y asista a las audiencias públicas programadas. Los residentes tendrán la oportunidad de:
1) PRESENTAR UN FORMULARIO DE COMUNIDAD DE INTERÉS; y
2) DIBUJAR BORRADOR DE MAPAS DE DISTRITOS
La Ciudad organizará una reunión virtual de información comunitaria el 9 de diciembre para explicar cómo aportar sus comentarios. Los enlaces y detalles de Zoom se publicarán en haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting, y habrá una estación de mapas disponible en la Biblioteca Pública de Monterey, 625 Pacific Street.

CÓMO PARTICIPAR
City of Monterey, CA - Dec 3, 2021

PROCESO DE ELECCIONES DE LOS DISTRITOS DEL CONSEJO
El 16 de noviembre de 2021, el Consejo Municipal
de Monterey adoptó una resolución de intención
para cambiar a un sistema electoral distrital.

Ahora comienza el trabajo para hacer que eso
suceda. Los documentos de antecedentes, los
comentarios públicos, los informes de la agenda,
las actas de las reuniones, los borradores de
mapas y los plazos para su revisión se incluirán
en los informes de la agenda de las reuniones y
se publicarán en Have Your Say Monterey, el
portal de participación de la Ciudad, en
haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting.

CALENDARIO DE
AUDIENCIAS PÚBLICAS
haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
City Manager's Office (831) 646-3760 [email protected] monterey.org Photo by John Ruddock, High Orbit Media
REGÍSTRESE Y PARTICIPE
LAS FECHAS PUEDEN CAMBIAR DESCRIPCIÓN GENERAL

HAVE YOUR SAY
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 65, Packet Page 150 Tell Us About Your Community!
Help shape the future of City of Monterey’s City Council Districts The Monterey City Council has begun the process of transitioning to district elections, using U.S. Census data to draw the City of Monterey’s four (4) City Council district boundaries. This ensures the districts are balanced in regard to population. The City Council wants to hear from you on how these boundaries should be drawn. Complete this form to tell the City Council about your community of interest – keeping communities of interest together is a high-ranking criteria in the redistricting process
What is a Community of Interest?
A Community of Interest is a group of people in the same geographically definable area who share common social and economic interests. Some examples of Communities of Interest are:
 People who live downtown or in an established neighborhood  Senior citizens
 LGBTQIA+ communities
 Students living near college and university campuses
 Military populations
 Residents who share a common language
 People that use the same transportation systems
What criteria will help the City Council understand the importance of your community in the redistricting process?
When documenting your community it is important to address the following questions to assist the City Council in the redistricting process:

1. Does your community have a shared culture, characteristics, or bond?

2. Is your community geographic in nature? Is your community able to be mapped? Is there density within your community?

3. Describe your community’s relationship with the City and how it is affected by policy decisions made by the City Council.

The public can submit any testimony, but it is important to remember that your input can be best used if it addresses all three of these questions.

What You Can Do to Further Participate in the Redistricting Process?

1. Provide your comments on your community of interest by completing this worksheet and return it by:
• E-mail a photo or PDF of this form to: [email protected] • U.S. Mail: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 • Drop off: Monterey Public Library, 625 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Open Tuesday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

2. Attend one of the City of Monterey City Council public meetings, times and locations to be publicized on our webpage:
www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 66, Packet Page 151

1. What are the common interests in your community? Describe how they are important:

2. Explain the geographical location of your community of interest. What are the physical boundaries?

3. What is the rationale for your community of interest to be used in the City Council redistricting process? Please describe how the issues before the Monterey City Council has an impact on your community.

4. What else would you like to tell us about your community? How to Submit the Form:

E-mail:
[email protected]
In person: Drop off with a staff member at
the Monterey Public Library, 625 Pacific St.,
open Tuesday - Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Mail:

Monterey City Clerk
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Community of Interest Form
Providing the following information is optional. If you provide an email address, we will send you updates on the process.

Name: Email:

Questions or comments?
We want to hear from you! E-mail the
City of Monterey at
[email protected]
or visit our webpage at
haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 67, Packet Page 152

COMMUNITY

MAPPING TOOL
NAME
EMAIL
OAKLAN Write in the population estimates for each of your drawn districts. ~7,500 Target Population Per District DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 • Create a single city council district
or create a four district plan.
• New districts should have a
population of around 7,500
• The largest district should be no
more than ~750 people greaterthan the smallest district.

THE RULES
Each of these is based on Census geographyThe numbers are a rounded number based onthe final census data adjusted by the State ofCalifornia.

ABOUT THE BLOCKS
Monterey City Clerk580 Pacific StreetMonterey, CA 93940 EMAIL: [email protected] IT Monterey Public Library625 Pacific StreetMonterey, CA 93940

ONCE COMPLETED
MAIL IT TO:

ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 68, Packet Page 153 Informe de la Agenda
del Ayuntamiento
№12/12
DE: Nat Rojanasathira, asistente del administrador municipal ASUNTO: Tercera audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del público sobre la composición de los distritos de los concejales de la ciudad después de la elaboración del proyecto de mapa o mapas y sobre la posible secuencia de elecciones para mandatos alternados (no es un proyecto según la ley CEQA, artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general).

RECOMENDACIÓN:

Que el ayuntamiento lleve a cabo la tercera audiencia pública para recibir aportes del público sobre la composición de los distritos de los concejales de la ciudad después de que se elabore el proyecto de mapa o mapas y sobre la posible secuencia de las elecciones para los períodos de mandato escalonados.

IMPLICACIONES POLÍTICAS:

La ley estatal exige la realización de múltiples audiencias públicas para la implementación de elecciones por distrito. La política de la ciudad es defender las constituciones federal y de California y tomar todas las medidas necesarias para garantizar la igualdad de protección ante la ley y el derecho al voto. Además, esta audiencia pública apoya el motor de valores del ayuntamiento de “Fomentar un gobierno local que sea transparente y colaborador; y que solicite, reciba y aprecie los aportes de todos”, así como “trabajar para mejorar la calidad de vida de todos los miembros de nuestra comunidad fomentando la diversidad, la equidad y la inclusión”.

IMPLICACIONES FISCALES:

Se dispone de fondos suficientes para que el personal y un consultor lleven a cabo esta audiencia pública y otros esfuerzos de participación pública para pasar de un sistema electoral general a otro basado en los distritos. El personal estima que el costo de este programa de trabajo no presupuestado y no planificado oscila entre los $75.000 y los $100.000, excluyendo el tiempo del personal. El costo no presupuestado de este programa se incluirá como una modificación en los ajustes presupuestarios de mitad de año.

RESOLUCIÓN AMBIENTAL:

La ciudad de Monterey determinó que la acción propuesta no es un proyecto según la definición de la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) (CCR, título 14, capítulo 3 (Directrices de la CEQA), artículo 20, sección 15378). Además, el artículo 15061 de las directrices CEQA incluye la norma general de que la CEQA sólo se aplica a las actividades que pueden causar un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente. Cuando se puede ver con certeza que no hay posibilidad de que la actividad en cuestión pueda tener un efecto Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 69, Packet Page 154 significativo sobre el medio ambiente, la actividad no está sujeta a la CEQA. Debido a que la acción propuesta y este asunto no tienen la posibilidad de causar ningún efecto sobre el medio ambiente, o porque entra en una categoría de actividades excluidas como proyectos de acuerdo con la sección 15378 de las directrices de la CEQA, este asunto no es un proyecto.

Debido a que el asunto no causa un cambio físico directo o cualquier cambio indirecto razonablemente previsible sobre o en el medio ambiente, este asunto no es un proyecto.

Cualquier proyecto discrecional posterior resultante de esta acción será evaluado para determinar la aplicabilidad de la CEQA.

ALTERNATIVAS:

El ayuntamiento podría optar por no realizar la audiencia pública o posponer este punto. Sin embargo, esto no es recomendable, ya que esta tercera audiencia pública es necesaria para cumplir con el calendario legal para la implementación de las elecciones basadas en distritos.

DISCUSIÓN:

Visión general
La ciudad de Monterey utiliza actualmente un sistema de elecciones generales. Esto significa que todos los votantes, independientemente de su lugar de residencia en la ciudad, tienen voz en la elección de todos los miembros del ayuntamiento. Un sistema electoral basado en distritos es aquel en el que la ciudad se divide en áreas geográficas separadas que constituyen los distritos, y los votantes que residen en el distrito eligen a un representante que también reside en el distrito. El 16 de noviembre de 2021, el ayuntamiento de Monterey adoptó la resolución 21-119, indicando su intención de pasar a un sistema por distritos (véanse los Anexos 6 y 7).

En la primera audiencia pública sobre las elecciones basadas en los distritos, celebrada el 7 de diciembre de 2021, el ayuntamiento votó a favor de que el proceso de asignación siguiera adelante con cuatro distritos de concejales y un alcalde general (véase el Anexo 4). Este enfoque es coherente con la carta de la ciudad, que establece: “El ayuntamiento estará compuesto por el alcalde y cuatro (4) concejales y será el órgano legislativo de la ciudad”. El 21 de diciembre de 2021 se celebró una segunda audiencia pública para recibir los comentarios del público antes de que se elaboraran los borradores de los mapas y se presentaran al público.

El 28 de diciembre de 2021, cuatro (4) borradores de los mapas se publicaron en línea en www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting y se publicaron físicamente en el tablero de anuncios de la agenda fuera de la cámara del ayuntamiento (580 Pacific Street), así como en las ventanas de las entradas principales de la Biblioteca Pública de Monterey (625 Pacific Street), El Estero Park Center (777 Pearl Street), Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center (735 Ramona Street), y Scholze Park Center (280 Dickman Avenue).

La tercera audiencia pública estaba programada para el 4 de enero de 2022, pero no se celebró debido a un error administrativo con la publicación del aviso de audiencia pública en español en el Monterey Herald. En su lugar, el ayuntamiento aprovechó la oportunidad del 4 de enero para celebrar una comparecencia pública (debate público general) para revisar los cuatro borradores de mapas y saber más sobre la secuencia de las elecciones.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 70, Packet Page 155 La tercera audiencia pública se celebrará el 18 de enero de 2022, momento en el que el ayuntamiento recibirá los comentarios adicionales del público sobre el borrador de los mapas y debatirá la posible secuencia de las elecciones para mandatos alternados.

Criterios para la creación de distritos
La ciudad debe cumplir varios criterios obligatorios al crear los distritos. Estos factores incluyen:
debe haber igualdad de población en todos los distritos (no más de un 10% de desviación), la raza no puede ser el factor o criterio “predominante” a la hora de trazar los distritos, y los derechos de voto de las minorías no pueden diluirse, en cumplimiento de la Ley Federal de Derecho al Voto (FVRA, por sus siglas en inglés).

Además, el código electoral de California exige que, en la medida de lo posible, se adopten líneas de distrito que cumplan con los siguientes criterios: que los distritos sean geográficamente contiguos, que se mantengan las comunidades de interés, que los límites sean fácilmente identificables, que los distritos sean geográficamente compactos y que los límites no favorezcan ni discriminen a un partido político. Los criterios para la creación de distritos se explican con más detalle en el informe de la agenda del 7 de diciembre de 2021 (Anexo 4).

Audiencia pública y participación
Para evitar una demanda de la Ley de Derecho al Voto de California (CVRA, por sus siglas en inglés), los mapas definitivos deben ser adoptados antes del 16 de febrero de 2022, que es un plazo modificado y ampliado en virtud de un acuerdo de peaje suscrito entre LULAC y la ciudad. Por lo tanto, la quinta y última audiencia pública se celebrará en la reunión ordinaria del ayuntamiento el 15 de febrero de 2022. El proceso de audiencia pública, con los requisitos establecidos para cada audiencia pública, es un mandato de la ley estatal. El calendario actual se adjunta (véase el Anexo 2).

Desde principios de noviembre de 2021, la ciudad ha estado trabajando para educar al público y buscar la opinión de la comunidad para ayudar a planificar, dibujar y definir los distritos de los concejales, y proporcionar información sobre el proceso de distribución de distritos. El sitio web de la ciudad sobre el proceso de distribución de distritos se encuentra en el portal de participación pública “opine sobre Monterey” en haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting. En este portal, el público puede informarse sobre el proceso, hacer preguntas, revisar el cronograma de implementación, descargar los formularios de las “comunidades de interés” y los borradores de mapas para completarlos y enviarlos, ver los borradores y los mapas de los distritos propuestos cuando estén disponibles, y leer todos los comentarios públicos enviados a la ciudad sobre el proceso de distribución.

Otros esfuerzos de divulgación incluyen publicaciones en las redes sociales, envíos de correos electrónicos, comunicados de prensa, actualizaciones de video en vivo del administrador municipal, un envío de tarjetas postales a todos los hogares, una estación de elaboración de mapas en la Biblioteca Pública de Monterey, una participación vecinal virtual y un taller comunitario que se llevó a cabo el 9 de diciembre de 2021, y anuncios impresos en el Monterey Herald, el Monterey County Weekly y el periódico en español de la región, El Sol.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 71, Packet Page 156 Los avisos de las audiencias públicas, los informes de la agenda y los documentos esenciales también están disponibles y se han publicado en español, de acuerdo con la ley estatal.

Borrador de mapas
El proceso de participación pública de la ciudad alentó a los miembros de la comunidad a proporcionar comentarios sobre sus comunidades de interés y los posibles límites de los distritos de los concejales. Para el 5 de enero de 2022, la ciudad recibió 24 propuestas de mapas de distritos utilizando la herramienta de mapeo comunitario (“placemats”), 12 formularios de comunidades de interés completados y más de 50 correos electrónicos y cartas. Todos los comentarios presentados, incluyendo la correspondencia del público, pueden verse y descargarse en www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting.

El demógrafo municipal, Redistricting Partners, utilizó la información de los formularios de comunidades de interés presentados por el público y los mapas de los distritos de los concejales para desarrollar cuatro (4) borradores de mapas, denominados Abalone, Bat Ray, Cuttlefish y Dolphin. Cada borrador de mapa muestra cuatro (4) posibles distritos de concejales. Todos los borradores de mapas elaborados por el demógrafo municipal cumplen con los criterios exigidos por las leyes estatales y federales, incluyendo la igualdad de la población entre los distritos (con una desviación no superior al 10%).

El 28 de diciembre de 2021, los borradores de los mapas se publicaron en línea y se publicaron físicamente en la cámara del ayuntamiento, la Biblioteca Pública de Monterey, El Estero Park Center, Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center, y Scholze Park Center.

Recomendación: Se pide al ayuntamiento que reciba los comentarios del público sobre los cuatro (4) borradores de mapas y que elija un mapa para avanzar en el proceso. Las modificaciones o cambios en el mapa podrían dirigirse a Redistricting Partners para su consideración, siempre que cumplan los requisitos legales.

Posible secuencia de las elecciones
Durante el proceso de audiencia pública, además de seleccionar un mapa final de distritos de concejales, el ayuntamiento también identificará qué dos distritos celebrarán elecciones basadas en el distrito en 2022 y qué dos celebrarán elecciones basadas en el distrito en 2024 (el “calendario de secuencia”). El mapa y el calendario de secuenciación se incluirán en la ordenanza de distribución de distritos y se presentarán para que el público haga sus aportes y las considere en primera y segunda lectura, tal y como se refleja en el calendario de audiencias públicas (detalles en el Anexo 2).

Requisitos legales
De acuerdo con la sección 10010(b) del código electoral, al determinar el calendario final de secuencias, el ayuntamiento tendrá especialmente en cuenta los propósitos de la ley de derecho al voto de California de 2001 (proteger la capacidad de una clase protegida para elegir a los candidatos de su elección) y tendrá en cuenta las preferencias expresadas por los miembros de los distritos.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 72, Packet Page 157 ¿Cómo se introducen las nuevas áreas de distrito?
Los concejales cuyos mandatos expiran en 2022 continuarán sirviendo a la ciudad en general durante sus mandatos elegidos, y tendrán la oportunidad de postularse para puestos basados en el distrito en noviembre de 2022, siempre que residan en uno de los dos distritos programados para esa elección.

Los concejales cuyos mandatos no expiran hasta 2024 seguirán sirviendo a la ciudad en general durante sus mandatos elegidos, y tendrán la oportunidad de presentarse como candidatos a escaños por distrito en noviembre de 2024, siempre que residan en uno de los dos distritos programados para esa elección.
¿Qué ocurre si varios concejales actuales viven en el mismo distrito? Si varios directivos viven en el mismo distrito de concejal, y se celebran elecciones en ese distrito en 2022, los directivos pueden presentarse a las elecciones en ese distrito junto con cualquier otro candidato. La persona que reciba el mayor número de votos ganará el escaño de ese distrito (y el mandato de cuatro años que conlleva), mientras que cualquier directivo perdedor dejará de formar parte del ayuntamiento, ya sea inmediatamente si su mandato elegido expira en 2022, o en 2024 si su mandato elegido expira en 2024. En otras palabras, incluso si un concejal actual cuyo mandato elegido finaliza en 2024 es derrotado en un intento de ganar un escaño basado en el distrito en 2022, continuará sirviendo en el ayuntamiento como concejal general hasta que su mandato elegido expire. Si un concejal actual cuyo mandato termina en 2024 gana un escaño por distrito en 2022, renunciará a su escaño por acumulación. La vacante se cubriría de acuerdo con la sección 2.5 de la carta, que establece en parte que “[una] vacante en un cargo electivo se cubrirá por designación del ayuntamiento, y la persona designada ocupará el cargo hasta la siguiente elección municipal general y hasta que se elija e instale un sucesor”.
¿Qué sucede si ningún concejal reside en un distrito?
Una vez adoptado el calendario de secuencias, si ningún concejal reside en un distrito programado para las elecciones de noviembre de 2022, sólo los no titulares podrán presentarse a las elecciones en ese distrito. Si ningún concejal reside en un distrito programado para las elecciones de noviembre de 2024, ese distrito continuará siendo representado por los restantes concejales por acumulación hasta 2024, cuando se celebrará su primera elección basada en el distrito.

Recomendación: Una vez que se seleccione uno de los tres borradores de mapas para avanzar en el proceso (con posibles modificaciones), el ayuntamiento dará su opinión sobre el calendario de secuencias. Se seleccionarán dos (2) distritos para celebrar elecciones en 2022 y los dos (2) restantes para celebrar elecciones en 2024.

Próximas medidas
En la tercera audiencia pública, el 18 de enero de 2022, el ayuntamiento escuchará a su demógrafo, Redistricting Partners, sobre los comentarios públicos recibidos y cómo se elaboraron los borradores de los mapas. El ayuntamiento también recibirá comentarios del público sobre los mapas y la secuencia.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 73, Packet Page 158 Se recomienda que el ayuntamiento elija un mapa para avanzar en el proceso. Cualquier modificación o cambio en el mapa podría dirigirse a los socios para la redistribución de distritos para su consideración, siempre y cuando cumpla con los requisitos legales. También se recomienda que el ayuntamiento proporcione instrucciones sobre un calendario de secuenciación que se corresponda con el mapa final.

En la cuarta audiencia pública, el 1 de febrero de 2022, Redistricting Partners presentará el borrador del mapa final para que el ayuntamiento lo considere. La presentación y primera lectura de la ordenanza que establece e implementa las elecciones por distrito, incluyendo el cronograma de secuencia, se realizará durante esta reunión. La dirección de la secuencia es determinada por el ayuntamiento según el código electoral 10010(b).

La quinta y última audiencia pública, el 15 de febrero de 2022, implicaría que el ayuntamiento realice una segunda lectura de la ordenanza. En esta reunión no se pueden realizar cambios en el mapa tal como fue presentado y publicado.

Archivos adjuntos: 1. Atlas de los borradores de los mapas: Opciones (Abalone, Bat Ray, Cuttlefish, Dolphin)

2. Calendario actual de las elecciones de distrito de la CVRA

3. Informe de la agenda: Segunda audiencia pública (21 de diciembre de 2021)

4. Informe de la agenda: Primera audiencia pública (7 de diciembre de 2021)

5. Informe de la agenda: Proceso de división de distritos (16 de noviembre de 2021)

6. Informe de la agenda: Resolución de intenciones (16 de noviembre de 2021)

7. Resolución de intención: Resolución No. 21-119 de la ciudad de Monterey (aprobada el 16 de noviembre de 2021)

8. Folleto informativo: Proceso de elección de los distritos del ayuntamiento

9. Formulario de comunidades de interés y herramienta de mapeo de la comunidad
Los escritos distribuidos para la discusión o consideración de este asunto dentro de las 72 horas anteriores a la reunión, de acuerdo con el código de gobierno § 54957.5, estarán disponibles en el siguiente enlace: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 74, Packet Page 159 Atlas of Draft Monterey City Council District Maps
City of Monterey, California
December 28, 2021
www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 75, Packet Page 160 Table of Contents
Draft Plan Abalone ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................... 4 Draft Plan Abalone – District A............................................................................ 5 Draft Plan Abalone – District B............................................................................ 6 Draft Plan Abalone – District C............................................................................ 7 Draft Plan Abalone – District D ........................................................................... 8 Draft Plan Abalone with Neighborhood Overlay................................................... 9 Draft Plan Abalone - Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) Draft Plan Bat Ray........................................................................................................... 10 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................. 11 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District A .......................................................................... 12 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District B .......................................................................... 13 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District C .......................................................................... 14 Draft Plan Bat Ray – District D.......................................................................... 15 Draft Plan Bat Ray with Neighborhood Overlay ................................................. 16 Draft Plan Bat Ray - Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) Draft Plan Cuttlefish ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................. 18 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District A....................................................................... 19 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District B ....................................................................... 20 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District C ....................................................................... 21 Draft Plan Cuttlefish – District D....................................................................... 22 Draft Plan Cuttlefish with Neighborhood Overlay .............................................. 23 Draft Plan Cuttlefish - Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) Draft Plan Dolphin........................................................................................................... 24 2020 Census and Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).................................. 25 Draft Plan Dolphin – District A .......................................................................... 26 Draft Plan Dolphin – District B .......................................................................... 27 Draft Plan Dolphin – District C .......................................................................... 28 Draft Plan Dolphin – District D.......................................................................... 29 Draft Plan Dolphin with Neighborhood Overlay ................................................. 30 Draft Plan Dolphin- Interactive Map with Detail (Web Link Only) ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 76, Packet Page 161 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 77, Packet Page 162 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone

A B C D
Total CVAP 6,231 5,549 4,968 5,442
Other CVAP 4,840 4,493 3,499 4,317
Other CVAP % 77.7% 81.0% 70.4% 79.3%
Latino CVAP 783 543 788 576
Latino CVAP % 12.6% 9.8% 15.9% 10.6%
Asian CVAP 252 404 495 377
Asian CVAP % 4.0% 7.3% 10.0% 6.9%
Black CVAP 356 109 186 172
Black CVAP % 5.7% 2.0% 3.7% 3.2%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 78, Packet Page 163 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,750 178 2.4% 5,571 71.9% 1,395 18.0% 607 7.8% 177 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,231 4,840 77.7% 783 12.6% 252 4.0% 356 5.7%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 79, Packet Page 164 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,850 278 3.7% 6,068 77.3% 1,027 13.1% 481 6.1% 274 3.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,549 4,493 81.0% 543 9.8% 404 7.3% 109 2.0%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 80, Packet Page 165 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,287 -285 -3.8% 4,326 59.4% 2,102 28.8% 642 8.8% 217 3.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,968 3,499 70.4% 788 15.9% 495 10.0% 186 3.7%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 81, Packet Page 166 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,403 -169 -2.2% 5,438 73.5% 1,125 15.2% 625 8.4% 215 2.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,442 4,317 79.3% 576 10.6% 377 6.9% 172 3.2%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 82, Packet Page 167 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Abalone with neighborhoods
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 83, Packet Page 168 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 84, Packet Page 169 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray

A B C D
Total CVAP 5,863 5,319 5,664 5,344
Other CVAP 4,405 4,313 4,668 3,763
Other CVAP % 75.1% 81.1% 82.4% 70.4%
Latino CVAP 810 509 466 905
Latino CVAP % 13.8% 9.6% 8.2% 16.9%
Asian CVAP 360 291 388 489
Asian CVAP % 6.1% 5.5% 6.9% 9.2%
Black CVAP 288 206 142 187
Black CVAP % 4.9% 3.9% 2.5% 3.5%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 85, Packet Page 170 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,852 280 3.7% 5,784 73.7% 1,315 16.7% 506 6.4% 247 3.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,863 4,405 75.1% 810 13.8% 360 6.1% 288 4.9%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 86, Packet Page 171 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,307 -265 -3.5% 5,366 73.4% 1,166 16.0% 581 8.0% 194 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,319 4,313 81.1% 509 9.6% 291 5.5% 206 3.9%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 87, Packet Page 172 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,486 -86 -1.1% 5,770 77.1% 887 11.8% 627 8.4% 202 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,664 4,668 82.4% 466 8.2% 388 6.9% 142 2.5%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 88, Packet Page 173 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,645 73 1.0% 4,483 58.6% 2,281 29.8% 641 8.4% 240 3.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,344 3,763 70.4% 905 16.9% 489 9.2% 187 3.5%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 89, Packet Page 174 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Bat Ray with neighborhoods
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 90, Packet Page 175 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 91, Packet Page 176 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish

A B C D
Total CVAP 6,122 5,392 5,536 5,140
Other CVAP 4,751 4,337 4,310 3,751
Other CVAP % 77.6% 80.4% 77.9% 73.0%
Latino CVAP 771 546 539 834
Latino CVAP % 12.6% 10.1% 9.7% 16.2%
Asian CVAP 247 400 496 385
Asian CVAP % 4.0% 7.4% 9.0% 7.5%
Black CVAP 353 109 191 170
Black CVAP % 5.8% 2.0% 3.5% 3.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 92, Packet Page 177 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,633 61 0.8% 5,494 72.0% 1,375 18.0% 593 7.8% 171 2.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,122 4,751 77.6% 771 12.6% 247 4.0% 353 5.8%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 93, Packet Page 178 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,533 -39 -0.5% 5,776 76.7% 1,001 13.3% 484 6.4% 272 3.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,392 4,337 80.4% 546 10.1% 400 7.4% 109 2.0%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 94, Packet Page 179 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,808 236 3.1% 5,629 72.1% 1,204 15.4% 727 9.3% 248 3.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,536 4,310 77.9% 539 9.7% 496 9.0% 191 3.5%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 95, Packet Page 180 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,316 -256 -3.4% 4,504 61.6% 2,069 28.3% 551 7.5% 192 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,140 3,751 73.0% 834 16.2% 385 7.5% 170 3.3%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 96, Packet Page 181 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Cuttlefish withneighborhoods
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 97, Packet Page 182 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 98, Packet Page 183 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin

A B C D
Total CVAP 6,231 5,485 5,344 5,130
Other CVAP 4,840 4,430 3,763 4,116
Other CVAP % 77.7% 80.8% 70.4% 80.2%
Latino CVAP 783 543 905 459
Latino CVAP % 12.6% 9.9% 16.9% 8.9%
Asian CVAP 252 403 489 384
Asian CVAP % 4.0% 7.3% 9.2% 7.5%
Black CVAP 356 109 187 171
Black CVAP % 5.7% 2.0% 3.5% 3.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 99, Packet Page 184 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District A
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,750 178 2.4% 5,571 71.9% 1,395 18.0% 607 7.8% 177 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,231 4,840 77.7% 783 12.6% 252 4.0% 356 5.7%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 100, Packet Page 185 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District B
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,745 173 2.3% 5,975 77.1% 1,021 13.2% 476 6.1% 273 3.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,485 4,430 80.8% 543 9.9% 403 7.3% 109 2.0%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 101, Packet Page 186 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District C
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,645 73 1.0% 4,483 58.6% 2,281 29.8% 641 8.4% 240 3.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,344 3,763 70.4% 905 16.9% 489 9.2% 187 3.5%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 102, Packet Page 187 City of Monterey
Plan Dolphin
District D
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 7,150 -422 -5.6% 5,374 75.2% 952 13.3% 631 8.8% 193 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,130 4,116 80.2% 459 8.9% 384 7.5% 171 3.3%
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 103, Packet Page 188 City of Monterey
Draft Plan Dolphin with neighborhoods
ADJUNTO 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 104, Packet Page 189 Monterey – Cronograma actual de las elecciones distritales ADJUNTO 2 Acción Citación Fecha límite de
publicación
Fecha límite/Fecha reunión
Recepción de la demanda (comienza puerto seguro de 45 días) EC 10010(e)(3)(A) - Reunión 9/25/2021 Reunión del Consejo - Sesión Cerrada Reunión 9/26/2021
Reunión del Consejo - Sesión Cerrada - - Reunión 10/19/2021 Reunión del Consejo - Sesión Cerrada - - Reunión 10/27/2021 Reunión del Consejo - Sesión Cerrada - - Reunión 11/2/2021 Reunión del consejo - Adoptar la resolución de intención - Comienza un período de puerto seguro adicional de 90 días EC 10010(e)(3)(B) - Reunión 11/16/2021
Finaliza el período de puerto seguro de 45 días EC 10010(e)(3)(A) - 11/9/2021 Ext. fecha límite 11/16/2021
según acuerdo con LULAC
Reunión del Consejo - 1ª audiencia pública - Descripción general, datos demográficos, comentarios del público1
EC 10010(a)(1)
1º AP mapas preliminar
11/27/2021 Reunión 12/7/2021
Reunión del Consejo - 2ª Audiencia Pública - Comentarios del público sobre los límites 1
EC 10010(a)(1)
2ª AP mapas preliminar
12/11/2021 Reunión 12/21/2021
Publicar mapas preliminares EC 10010(a)(2)
7 días antes de la AP
12/28/2021 -
Reunión del Consejo - Apariencia Pública - Comentarios del público sobre mapas preliminares, secuencia de elecciones - - Reunión 1/4/2022
Reunión del Consejo – 3ª Audiencia Pública - Comentarios del público sobre mapas preliminares, secuencia de elecciones 2 EC 10010(a)(2)
1º AP mapas preliminar
1/8/2022 Reunión 1/18/2022
Publicar mapas preliminares (si se revisaron en la 3ª audiencia pública o después)
EC 10010(a)(2)
7 días antes de la AP
1/25/2022 -
Reunión del Consejo – 4ª Audiencia Pública - Comentarios del público sobre mapas preliminares, secuencia de elecciones - Introducir la Ordenanza para las Elecciones Distritales
EC 10010(a)(2)
2ª AP mapas preliminar
1/22/2022 Reunión 2/1/2022
Publicar el mapa final (si se revisó en o después de la 4ª audiencia pública)
EC 10010(a)(2)
7 días antes de la AP
2/8/2022 -
Reunión del Consejo – 5ª Audiencia Pública - Comentarios del público sobre mapa final, secuencia de elecciones - Adoptar la Ordenanza para las Elecciones Distritales
EC 10010(a) 2/5/2022 Reunión 2/15/2022
Finaliza el período de puerto seguro de 90 días EC 10010(e)(3)(B) - 2/14/2022 Ext. fecha límite 2/16/2022
según acuerdo con LULAC
Fecha de entrada en vigor de la ordenanza - 3/17/2022
1 El periodo entre la primera y la segunda audiencia pública no puede ser mayor a 30 días. EC 10010(a)(1) 2 El periodo entre la tercera y cuarta audiencia pública no puede ser mayor a 45 días. EC 10010(a)(2) Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 105, Packet Page 190 ADJUNTO 3
Informe de la Agenda
del Ayuntamiento
№12/12
DE: Nat Rojanasathira, asistente del administrador municipal ASUNTO: Segunda audiencia pública para recibir la opinión del público sobre la composición de los concejales municipales por distrito antes de elaborar un borrador de mapa o mapas (no es un proyecto de acuerdo con la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
RECOMENDACIÓN:

Que el ayuntamiento lleve a cabo la segunda audiencia pública para recibir aportes del público sobre la composición de los concejales municipales por distrito antes de elaborar un borrador de mapa o mapas.

IMPLICACIONES POLÍTICAS:

La ley estatal exige la realización de múltiples audiencias públicas para la implementación de elecciones distritales. La política de la ciudad es defender la constitución federal y la de California y tomar las medidas necesarias para garantizar la igualdad de protección ante la ley y el derecho al voto. Además, esta audiencia pública apoya a los impulsores de valores del Ayuntamiento, la cual incluye: “mantener y ampliar un entorno que solicite, reciba y aprecie los aportes de todos”.

IMPLICACIONES FISCALES:

Se dispone de fondos suficientes para que el personal y un consultor lleven a cabo esta audiencia pública y otros esfuerzos de participación pública para pasar de un sistema electoral general a uno distrital. El personal estima que el costo de este programa de trabajo no presupuestado y no planificado oscila entre los $75.000 y los $100.000, sin incluir el tiempo del personal. El costo no presupuestado de este programa se incluirá como modificación en los ajustes presupuestarios de mitad de año.

RESOLUCIÓN AMBIENTAL:

Cuando se puede ver con certeza que no hay posibilidad de que la actividad en cuestión pueda tener un efecto significativo sobre el medio ambiente, la actividad no está sujeta a la CEQA.

Debido a que la acción propuesta y este asunto no tienen la posibilidad de causar ningún efecto sobre el medio ambiente, o porque entra en una categoría de actividades excluidas como proyectos de acuerdo con la sección 15378 de los lineamientos de la CEQA, este asunto no es un proyecto. Debido a que el asunto no causa un cambio físico directo o ningún cambio Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 106, Packet Page 191 ADJUNTO 3
indirecto razonablemente previsible sobre o en el medio ambiente, este asunto no es un proyecto. Cualquier proyecto discrecional posterior resultante de esta acción será evaluado para determinar la aplicabilidad de la CEQA.

ALTERNATIVAS:

El Ayuntamiento podría optar por no realizar la audiencia pública o posponer este punto. Sin embargo, esto no es recomendable, ya que esta segunda audiencia pública es necesaria para cumplir con el calendario legal para la implementación de las elecciones distritales.

DISCUSIÓN:

Visión general
En la actualidad, la ciudad de Monterey utiliza un sistema electoral general. Esto significa que todos los votantes, independientemente de su lugar de residencia en la ciudad, tienen voz en la elección de cada miembro del Ayuntamiento. Un sistema electoral distrital es aquel en el que la ciudad se divide en áreas geográficas separadas que constituyen los distritos, y los votantes que residen en el distrito eligen a un representante que también reside en el distrito. El 16 de noviembre de 2021, el Ayuntamiento de Monterey adoptó la Resolución 21-119, indicando su intención de pasar a un sistema distrital (véanse los anexos 4 y 5).

En la primera audiencia pública sobre las elecciones distritales, celebrada el 7 de diciembre de 2021, el ayuntamiento votó a favor de establecer cuatro concejales por distrito y un alcalde general (véase el anexo 2). Este enfoque es coherente con la Ordenanza Municipal.

La segunda audiencia pública de una serie de cinco audiencias públicas tendrá lugar durante la reunión del Ayuntamiento de Monterey el 21 de diciembre de 2021 a las 7:00 p.m., con el objetivo de recibir las opiniones del público sobre la composición de los concejales municipales por distrito antes de que se creen los borradores de los mapas y se presenten al público. En esta reunión, el personal municipal y el demógrafo municipal, Redistricting Partners, estarán disponibles para responder a preguntas sobre el proceso de trazado de mapas.

Criterios para la creación de distritos
La ciudad debe cumplir varios criterios obligatorios al crear los distritos. Estos factores incluyen:
igualdad de población entre los distritos (no más de un 10% de desviación), la raza no puede ser el factor o criterio “predominante” al trazar los distritos, y el cumplimiento de la Ley Federal del Derecho al Voto (FVRA, por sus siglas en inglés), que prohíbe los distritos que diluyan los derechos de voto de las minorías.

Además, el Código Electoral de California exige, en la medida de lo posible, que las líneas de los distritos se adopten utilizando los siguientes criterios: distritos geográficamente contiguos, mantenimiento de comunidades de interés, límites fácilmente identificables, compacidad geográfica y límites que no favorezcan ni discriminen a un partido político. En el informe de la agenda del 7 de diciembre de 2021 (anexo 2) se explica más información sobre los criterios para la creación de distritos.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 107, Packet Page 192 ADJUNTO 3
Audiencia pública y participación
Para evitar una demanda de la Ley de Derecho al Voto de California (CVRA, por sus siglas en inglés), los mapas definitivos deben aprobarse antes del 14 de febrero de 2022, 90 días después de la aprobación de la resolución. El proceso de audiencias públicas, con requisitos establecidos para cada una de ellas, es obligatorio según la ley estatal. El calendario actual está adjunto (véase el anexo 1).

Desde principios de noviembre de 2021, la ciudad ha estado trabajando para educar al público y buscar la opinión de la comunidad para ayudar a planificar, dibujar y definir los concejales por distrito, y proporcionar información sobre el proceso de distribución de los distritos. La ciudad ha creado un sitio web sobre el proceso de distribución de distritos en el portal de participación pública de la ciudad “Opine sobre Monterey” en haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting. En esta página, el público puede informarse sobre el proceso, hacer preguntas, revisar el calendario de aplicación, descargar formularios de “comunidades de interés” para enviarlos, dibujar mapas, ver los borradores y las propuestas de mapas de los distritos cuando estén disponibles, y leer todos los comentarios públicos enviados a la ciudad.

Otros esfuerzos incluyen las redes sociales, correos electrónicos, difusión de los medios de comunicación, actualizaciones de video en vivo del administrador municipal, un correo postal a todos los hogares, una estación de elaboración de mapas en la biblioteca pública de Monterey, un taller virtual de participación de los vecinos y de la comunidad, y anuncios impresos en el Monterey Herald, Monterey County Weekly, y el periódico en español de la región, El Sol.

Los avisos de las audiencias públicas, los informes de la agenda y los documentos esenciales también están disponibles y se han publicado en español, de acuerdo con la ley estatal.

Próximas medidas
Después de la segunda audiencia pública el 21 de diciembre de 2021, el consultor municipal de mapas, Districting Partners, preparará un borrador de mapas para su consideración. A más tardar el 28 de diciembre de 2021, estos borradores de mapas se publicarán en haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting y se publicará físicamente en el tablero de anuncios de la agenda fuera de la Cámara del Ayuntamiento (580 Pacific Street), así como en las ventanas de las entradas principales de la biblioteca pública de Monterey (625 Pacific Street), El Estero Park Center (777 Pearl Street), Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center (735 Ramona Street) y Scholze Park Center (280 Dickman Avenue).

La tercera audiencia pública se celebrará el 4 de enero de 2022 a las 7:00 p.m. en la Cámara del Ayuntamiento (Few Memorial Hall of Records), el Ayuntamiento de Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, y virtualmente en ZoomGov.

Archivos adjuntos: 1. Informe de la agenda: Segunda audiencia pública (21 de diciembre de 2021)

2. Informe de la agenda: Primera audiencia pública (7 de diciembre de 2021)3. Informe de la agenda: Proceso de división de distritos (16 de noviembre de 2021)

4. Informe de la agenda: Resolución de intención (16 de noviembre de 2021)

5. Resolución de intención: Resolución de la ciudad de Monterey n.° 21-119 (aprobada el 16 de noviembre de 2021)
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 108, Packet Page 193 ADJUNTO 3

6. Folleto informativo: Proceso de elecciones de los distritos del Ayuntamiento

7. Formulario de comunidad de intereses y ejercicio de mapeo distrital La documentación distribuida para el debate o la consideración de este asunto dentro de las 72 horas anteriores a la reunión, de conformidad con el artículo 54957.5 del Código Gubernamental, estará disponible en el siguiente enlace: https://monterey.org/SubmittedComments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 109, Packet Page 194 ADJUNTO 4
Informe de la Agenda
del Ayuntamiento
№12/12
REMITENTE: Nat Rojanasathira, Asistente del Administrador de la Ciudad Christine Davi, Abogada de la Ciudad
ASUNTO: Primera audiencia pública para la transición de elecciones generales a elecciones distritales (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061) RECOMENDACIÓN:

Que el Consejo Municipal lleve a cabo la primera audiencia pública para la transición de elecciones generales a elecciones por distrito.

El personal recomienda que el Consejo Municipal establezca cuatro (4) distritos con sus concejales y retenga un alcalde a nivel general, sumando un total de cinco (5) miembros sirviendo en el Consejo Municipal de Monterey. Este enfoque mantiene intacta la estructura del Consejo Municipal existente y no se requeriría una enmienda a la carta constitutiva.

La decisión de cambiar el número de funcionarios electivos o de cambiar el período de mandato del alcalde requeriría una enmienda a la carta constitutiva. Dado el plazo estrecho para realizar la conversión a elecciones distritales para recibir el beneficio de limitar el monto de los honorarios y costos de los abogados que son recuperables por un posible demandante en virtud de la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California, no se recomienda una enmienda a la carta constitutiva en este momento.

IMPLICACIONES POLÍTICAS:

La ley estatal requiere la realización de múltiples audiencias públicas para la implementación de elecciones por distrito. La política de la ciudad es defender la constitución federal y la de California y tomar las medidas necesarias para garantizar la igualdad de protección ante la ley y el derecho al voto. Además, esta audiencia pública respalda las motivaciones relacionadas con los valores del Consejo Municipal que incluyen “mantener y expandir un entorno que solicita, da la bienvenida y aprecia las aportaciones de todos2.

IMPLICACIONES FISCALES:

Hay fondos suficientes disponibles para que el personal y un consultor lleven a cabo esta audiencia pública y esfuerzos adicionales de participación pública para cambiar de un sistema de elección general a uno distrital. El personal estima que el costo de este programa de trabajo no presupuestado y no planificado oscila entre 75,000 y 100,000 dólares, excluido el tiempo del personal.

DETERMINACIÓN MEDIOAMBIENTAL:

La Ciudad de Monterey determinó que la acción propuesta no es un proyecto según lo definido por la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA) (CCR, Título 14, Capítulo 3 (“Directrices Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 110, Packet Page 195 ADJUNTO 4
de la CEQA), Artículo 20, Sección 15378). Además, la Sección 15061 de las Directrices de la CEQA incluye la regla general de que la CEQA se aplica solo a las actividades que tienen el potencial de causar un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente. Cuando se puede ver con certeza que no existe la posibilidad de que la actividad en cuestión pueda tener un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente, la actividad no está sujeta a CEQA. Debido a que la acción propuesta y este asunto no tienen ningún potencial para causar ningún efecto en el medio ambiente, o porque se encuentra dentro de una categoría de actividades excluidas como proyectos de conformidad con la sección 15378 de las Directrices de la CEQA, este asunto no es un proyecto. Debido a que el asunto no causa un cambio físico directo o indirecto razonablemente previsible en el medio ambiente, este asunto no es un proyecto. Cualquier proyecto discrecional posterior que resulte de esta acción será evaluado para ver su aplicabilidad bajo la CEQA.

ALTERNATIVAS:

El Consejo Municipal podría optar por no realizar la audiencia pública o posponer este tema.

Sin embargo, esto no se recomienda, ya que se requiere esta primera audiencia pública para cumplir con el cronograma legal para implementar las elecciones distritales.

DISCUSIÓN:

Descripción general
La ciudad de Monterey actualmente utiliza un sistema de elecciones generales. Esto significa que todos los votantes, sin importar dónde vivan en la Ciudad, tienen voz en la elección de cada miembro del Consejo Municipal. Los sistemas de votación general pueden operar de una forma que minimiza o cancela la fuerza de voto de las minorías, derrotando así las opciones de los votantes minoritarios.

Un sistema electoral basado distrital es aquel en el que la ciudad está dividida en áreas geográficas separadas que componen los distritos, y los votantes que residen dentro del distrito eligen a un representante que también reside dentro del distrito.

La carta constitutiva de la Ciudad no exige un sistema de elecciones generales; sin embargo, especifica el número de funcionarios electivos, es decir, un alcalde y cuatro concejales, y los períodos de mandato para cada uno: dos años y cuatro años, respectivamente. (Secciones 2.1,

3.1 y 4.1 de la carta constitutiva).

El 16 de noviembre de 2021, el Consejo Municipal de Monterey adoptó la Resolución 21-119, indicando su intención de convertirse a un sistema distrital para fomentar la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California.

Esta es la primera audiencia pública de una serie de cinco que se llevarán a cabo durante los próximos meses.

El personal de la ciudad, junto con el consultor de cartografía y distribución de distritos de la ciudad, Redistricting Partners, proporcionará un resumen de la conversión a las elecciones por distrito, describirá con más detalle los esfuerzos de alcance comunitario y buscará comentarios del público sobre el proceso de distribución de distritos.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 111, Packet Page 196 ADJUNTO 4
Número de distritos de concejales
El personal recomienda que el Consejo Municipal ordene al personal que comience el proceso de distribución de distritos con cuatro distritos de concejales y un alcalde elegido de forma general. Este enfoque no solo es consistente con la carta constitutiva de la Ciudad, sino que debería garantizar una representación justa, con distritos contiguos y compactos, y con comunidades de interés que se mantienen unidas siempre que sea posible.

En California, las ciudades con leyes generales deben llevar a cabo elecciones de acuerdo con el Código Electoral, mientras que las ciudades autónomas pueden establecer sus propias reglas y regulaciones para las elecciones según las disposiciones de sus estatutos. (El Manual de Leyes Municipales de California (Cal. CEB 2021, Sección 3.1 en p. 267).

Por lo general, un sistema de elección del consejo municipal por distritos debe establecerse mediante una ordenanza aprobada por los votantes. La ordenanza puede ser una medida electoral iniciada por el consejo municipal o una medida de iniciativa. (Sección 34871 del Código de Gobierno).

En 2017, AB 2220 fue promulgada como una medida de ahorro de costos para las jurisdicciones que se enfrentan a posibles litigios bajo la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California y para facilitar las transiciones a los sistemas electorales por distritos. (Sección 34886 del Código de Gobierno). AB 2220 enmendó el Código de Gobierno para permitir que las ciudades adopten una ordenanza que requiera que el consejo municipal sea elegido por distritos sin tener que presentar la ordenanza a los votantes. Proporciona:

A pesar de la Sección 34871 o cualquier otra ley, el cuerpo legislativo de una ciudad puede adoptar una ordenanza que requiera que los miembros del cuerpo legislativo sean elegidos por distrito o por distrito con un alcalde electivo, como se describe en las subdivisiones (a) y (c) de la Sección 34871, sin necesidad de presentar la ordenanza a los votantes para su aprobación. Una ordenanza adoptada de conformidad con esta sección deberá cumplir con los requisitos y criterios de la Sección 21601 o 21621 del Código Electoral, según corresponda, e incluir una declaración de que el cambio en el método de elección de los miembros del cuerpo legislativo se está realizando en cumplimiento de los propósitos de la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California de 2001 (Capítulo 1.5 (comenzando con la Sección 14025) de la División 14 del Código Electoral .) Según el historial legislativo de AB 2220, “este proyecto de ley busca regular la forma en que se eligen los funcionarios municipales. No está claro si este proyecto de ley se aplicaría a las ciudades autónomas. Según la Liga de Ciudades de California, patrocinador de este proyecto de ley, si la carta constitutiva de una ciudad autónoma contiene disposiciones que contradicen este proyecto de ley, la carta constitutiva tendría prioridad. Por el contrario, si la carta constitutiva de la ciudad no especifica los procedimientos electorales o contiene lenguaje que indica que las leyes electorales estatales regirán las elecciones de esa ciudad, se aplicarán las disposiciones de este proyecto de ley”. (Comité de la Asamblea de Análisis del Gobierno Local, 3 de mayo de 2016.)
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 112, Packet Page 197 ADJUNTO 4
En este caso, la carta constitutiva de la Ciudad autoriza a la Ciudad a “ejercer cualquier derecho, poder o privilegio otorgado a las corporaciones municipales por las leyes generales del Estado de California”. (Sección 1.4 de la Carta Constitutiva). Esto significa que la carta constitutiva de la Ciudad le autoriza a utilizar el proceso de transición a elecciones por distritos según el Código de Gobierno, siempre y cuando no sea incompatible con otras disposiciones de la carta constitutiva. La carta constitutiva no especifica en ninguna otra parte el método de elecciones de la Ciudad; solo especifica el número de funcionarios electivos y sus mandatos.

Por lo tanto, aunque no existe una jurisprudencia al respecto, se podría decir que la Ciudad puede cambiar a elecciones distritales que mantengan su estructura existente del Consejo Municipal sin una enmienda a la carta constitutiva. Se recomienda una enmienda a la carta constitutiva adoptada por voto del pueblo para cualquier cambio en el número de funcionarios electivos o en sus mandatos.

Un cambio de elecciones generales a elecciones distritales ya es un cambio drástico en el modelo de gobierno de la Ciudad, ya que los concejales han sido elegidos de forma general durante 171 años. Algunas consideraciones futuras para una discusión sobre el aumento del número de funcionarios electivos en la ciudad o el cambio del mandato del alcalde son si más distritos darán como resultado una mejor representación, crearán el potencial para una menor influencia de los votantes y/o podrán retener comunidades de interés, entre otras consideraciones importantes.

Criterios para la creación de distritos
El Consejo Municipal da la bienvenida y alienta los comentarios de la comunidad sobre la composición de los distritos electorales aún por formar. Hay varios criterios obligatorios que la Ciudad debe cumplir cuando se crean los distritos:
a) Igualdad de población en todos los distritos (los distritos serán casi iguales en población).
b) La raza no puede ser el factor o criterio “predominante” a la hora de trazar distritos. c) Cumplimiento de la Ley Federal de Derechos Electorales (FVRA), que, entre otras cosas, prohíbe los distritos que diluyen los derechos de voto de las minorías y fomenta un distrito de mayoría-minoría, si el grupo minoritario es lo suficientemente grande, y dicho distrito puede ser elegido sin que la raza sea el factor predominante.

Además, el Código Electoral de California requiere, en la medida de lo posible, que las líneas de los distritos cumplan con la Ley Federal de Derechos Electorales y se adopten utilizando los siguientes criterios, en el siguiente orden de prioridad:

1. Distritos contiguos geográficamente (cada distrito del consejo municipal debe compartir una frontera común con el siguiente). Las áreas que se encuentran solo en los puntos de las esquinas contiguas no son contiguas. Las áreas que están separadas por agua y no conectadas por un puente, túnel o servicio regular de ferry no son contiguas.

2. En la medida de lo posible, se respetará la integridad geográfica de cualquier vecindario o comunidad local de interés de una manera que minimice su división. Una “comunidad de interés” es una población que comparte intereses sociales o económicos comunes que deben incluirse dentro de un solo distrito para los propósitos de su representación Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 113, Packet Page 198 ADJUNTO 4
justa y efectiva. Las comunidades de interés no incluyen relaciones con partidos políticos, titulares o candidatos políticos.

3. Los límites de los distritos municipales deben ser fácilmente identificables y comprensibles para los residentes. En la medida de lo posible, los distritos municipales estarán delimitados por barreras naturales y artificiales, por calles o por los límites de la ciudad.

4. En la medida de lo posible, y cuando no entre en conflicto con los criterios anteriores en esta subdivisión, los distritos municipales se trazarán para fomentar la compacidad geográfica de manera que las áreas cercanas de población no se pasen por alto en favor de poblaciones más distantes.

5. El consejo no adoptará los límites de los distritos municipales con el propósito de favorecer o discriminar a un partido político.

Los criterios de mapeo han cambiado recientemente con la promulgación de la Ley de Mapas Justos, que entró en vigor el 1 de enero de 2020. Especifica nuevos criterios y fechas límite para que las ciudades adopten nuevos límites de distritos. Aunque esta ley también especifica nuevos plazos para la redistribución de distritos, estos no se aplican a una ciudad que está adoptando distritos por primera vez, incluso cuando una ciudad adopta distritos municipales con el propósito de pasar de elegir a sus concejales en elecciones generales a elecciones distritales. (Sección 21625(e) del Código Electoral).

Cronograma de audiencias públicas y participación
Para evitar un pleito legal bajo la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California (CVRA), los mapas finales deben adoptarse antes del 14 de febrero de 2022, 90 días después de la adopción de la resolución. El proceso de audiencias públicas, con requisitos establecidos para cada audiencia pública, es obligatorio según la ley estatal. Se adjunta el cronograma tentativo (ver Anexo A).

Aunque la Ciudad podría solicitar una extensión de LULAC por hasta 90 días adicionales, el personal cree que la intención del Estado es realizar este esfuerzo de manera rápida y que el trabajo de audiencia pública y participación no requiere una solicitud de extensión en este momento. Además, el personal de la ciudad tiene otro trabajo prioritario (por ejemplo, política de venta minorista de cannabis, viviendas asequibles, etc.) para completar a principios de 2022.

El siguiente es un cronograma tentativo para las audiencias públicas, que se escucharán según lo requiere la ley estatal para la adopción de los mapas finales de los distritos y la transición a las elecciones distritales:
● Reunión ordinaria del 7 de diciembre de 2021: Primera audiencia El consejo y la comunidad reciben una descripción general del proceso e información sobre cómo proporcionar sus comentarios sobre las “comunidades de interés” y cómo proponer mapas. El público proporciona información.
● Reunión ordinaria del 21 de diciembre de 2021: Segunda audiencia El consejo recibe más comentarios de la comunidad con respecto a las comunidades de interés.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 114, Packet Page 199 ADJUNTO 4
● 28 de diciembre de 2022: Primeros mapas publicados
El demógrafo (consultor de la ciudad) proporciona tres opciones de mapas para que el Consejo Municipal las considere y proporcione comentarios sobre un mapa final. La ciudad publica los mapas al menos siete días antes de la tercera audiencia del 4 de enero de 2022.
● Reunión ordinaria del 4 de enero de 2022: Tercera audiencia El consejo revisa los mapas propuestos, la secuencia de las elecciones y recibe comentarios del público.
● 11 de enero de 2022: Publicación de los mapas revisados (si corresponde) La ciudad publica los mapas al menos siete días antes de la cuarta audiencia del 18 de enero de 2022.
● Reunión ordinaria del 18 de enero de 2022: Cuarta audiencia sobre el mapa final, introducción de la ordenanza
El consejo revisa el mapa final y la secuencia de elecciones, recibe comentarios del público.
● 25 de enero de 2022: Publicación del mapa final (si corresponde) La ciudad publica al menos siete días antes de la audiencia final del 1 de febrero de 2022.
● Reunión ordinaria del 1 de febrero de 2022: Quinta audiencia, adopción del mapa y la ordenanza para las elecciones de distrito
El consejo recibe comentarios del público sobre el mapa y la secuencia de elecciones, los votos sobre el mapa y la ordenanza que establece las elecciones distritales. ● 14 de febrero de 2022: Fecha límite para celebrar todas las audiencias públicas Esto es 90 días después de la adopción de la resolución.

De conformidad con el Código Electoral de California, “... la audiencia pública comenzará a una hora fija independientemente de su orden en la agenda, con la excepción de que el consejo puede primero concluir cualquier tema que se esté discutiendo o sobre el que se tome acción, incluido cualquier comentario público asociado, cuando ese momento ocurre”. Estas audiencias públicas se llevarán a cabo a las 7:00 p.m.

Mapeo de distritos y proceso de recepción de comentarios del público Según la ley estatal, las ciudades tienen prohibido dibujar un borrador de mapa o mapas de los límites municipales propuestos hasta después de que se lleve a cabo la primera audiencia pública.

Como se indicó anteriormente, los criterios para los límites finales de los distritos municipales son prescriptivos, requiriendo que los distritos sean casi iguales en población, geográficamente contiguos, respetuosos de las “comunidades de interés”, sean fácilmente identificables por los residentes y geográficamente compactos.

La Ciudad busca comentarios de la comunidad para ayudar a planificar, dibujar y definir los distritos de los concejales. El personal y los consultores de la ciudad le pedirán al público que:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 115, Packet Page 200 ADJUNTO 4
● Compartan sus comentarios.
● Definan su vecindario o comunidad de interés.
● Envíen borradores de mapas.
● Compartan sus comentarios sobre los borradores de mapas. ● Se conecten con sus compañeros miembros de la comunidad sobre el proceso del distrito y por qué es importante.

Además de las herramientas de participación en las redes sociales, la Ciudad ha lanzado una página web sobre el proceso de distritos y mapeo en el portal de participación pública de la Ciudad Have Your Say Monterey, ubicado en: www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting con enlaces disponibles en el sitio web principal de la ciudad, www.monterey.org.

Este sitio web incluye información sobre cómo se pueden proporcionar comentarios a la Ciudad, el calendario de fechas de audiencias públicas, grabaciones o resúmenes escritos de cada taller público, cada borrador de mapa considerado por el consejo y el mapa final adoptado.

Además de las audiencias públicas, el estado requiere que la información sobre la redistribución de distritos se proporcione en “cualquier idioma que hable un grupo de residentes de la ciudad con un dominio limitado del inglés que constituya el 3 por ciento o más de la población total de la ciudad mayor de cuatro años para quién se puede determinar el idioma”.

Según la Secretaría de Estado de California, la Ciudad de Monterey también debe proporcionar esta información a los residentes en español. De la población de 5 años o más, el 3.6% son hispanohablantes que hablan inglés menos que “muy bien”, según estimaciones de la Oficina del Censo de los EE. UU. Los avisos de audiencia pública se publicarán en español. La Ciudad pondrá la información a disposición en español y alentará a las comunidades que no hablan inglés a participar en el proceso de mapeo.

El resumen de los esfuerzos de divulgación iniciados por la Ciudad se enumera a continuación:
● Have Your Say Monterey - Portal de participación pública. La Ciudad ha lanzado un proyecto en el portal de participación pública “Have Your Say Monterey” de la Ciudad en haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting. En este portal, el público puede conocer el proceso, hacer preguntas, revisar el cronograma de implementación, descargar formularios de “Comunidades de interés” para enviar, dibujar mapas y leer todos los comentarios públicos enviados a la Ciudad. Los residentes podrán descargar “kits de mapas”, utilizar la herramienta de mapas en línea y aprender más sobre cómo enviar sus propios mapas.
● Herramienta de mapeo ciudadano en línea. La Ciudad está explorando un software en línea que permite a los miembros del público dibujar y enviar mapas para su consideración. Debido a la demanda de estas herramientas entre los gobiernos locales, es posible que el software no esté disponible. Esta herramienta costaría $8,000 si se implementara.
● Campaña de correo electrónico y redes sociales. La información sobre la creación de distritos se seguirá compartiendo como parte de la estrategia de participación digital de la ciudad: la ciudad tiene más de 12,700 seguidores en Twitter, 32,000 seguidores Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 116, Packet Page 201 ADJUNTO 4
en Facebook y más de 2,000 suscriptores de correo electrónico. ● Mañanas con el Administrador. Las actualizaciones se compartirán cada tres semanas durante las actualizaciones del administrador de la ciudad en YouTube Live, vistas por cientos de espectadores cada mes.
● Divulgación en los medios. La Ciudad continuará compartiendo información a través de comunicados de prensa y durante las reuniones informativas semanales con los medios de comunicación públicos de radio, periódicos y medios de difusión. ● Envío de postales para todos los hogares. Se está enviando una tarjeta postal a todos los hogares de los residentes de la ciudad (aproximadamente 15,000). ● Estación de cartografía. A mediados de diciembre, la Ciudad proporcionará una estación de elaboración de mapas en la Biblioteca Pública de Monterey donde los residentes pueden recoger un kit donde pueden dibujar sus propios mapas, enviar “Formularios de comunidades de interés” y compartir otros comentarios para su consideración.
● Taller de Participación Vecinal y Comunitario. El 9 de diciembre de 2021, el personal de la Ciudad organizará un taller informativo sobre cómo los ciudadanos pueden aprender sobre el proceso de distribución de distritos, enviar Formularios de comunidades de interés, así como dibujar y enviar sus propios mapas. Se anima a las asociaciones de vecinos a que se involucren más con sus residentes sobre el proceso. ● Imprimir anuncios y folletos. La Ciudad también gastará hasta $5,000 en anuncios en el Monterey Herald, Monterey County Weekly y el periódico en español de la región, El Sol. Además, se colocarán folletos en los espacios comunitarios, incluida la biblioteca, los centros comunitarios y el Monterey Sports Center.

Próximos pasos
En su audiencia pública el 7 de diciembre de 2021, el personal le pedirá al Consejo Municipal que confirme que el proceso de mapeo debe enfocarse en cuatro (4) distritos de concejales y un alcalde en general, para un total de cinco (5) miembros sirviendo en el Consejo Municipal de Monterey, y no en una enmienda a la carta constitutiva.

El personal de la ciudad, junto con el consultor de mapas y distritos de la ciudad, Redistricting Partners, proporcionarán un resumen del proceso de conversión de elecciones por distrito el 7 de diciembre de 2021. Se llevará a cabo una segunda audiencia pública el 21 de diciembre de 2021.

Adjunto: 1. Cronograma actual de las elecciones distritales de CVRA Traducciones al idioma español adjuntas
Informe de la agenda
Cronograma actual de las elecciones distritales de CVRA Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 117, Packet Page 202 ADJUNTO 4
Los escritos distribuidos para discusión o consideración sobre este asunto dentro de las 72 horas previas a la reunión, de conformidad con el Código de Gobierno §54957.5, estarán disponibles en el siguiente enlace: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 118, Packet Page 203 ADJUNTO 5 Informe de la Agenda
del Ayuntamiento
№12/12
DE: Nat Rojanasathira, Asistente del Administrador Municipal ASUNTO: Recibir una presentación sobre el proceso de división de distritos para pasar de un método de elección general a un sistema por distritos (no es un proyecto según la CEQA, según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
RECOMENDACIÓN:

Que el ayuntamiento reciba una presentación sobre el proceso de conversión de un método de elección general a un sistema por distritos.

IMPLICACIONES POLÍTICAS:

Los impulsores de valores del ayuntamiento incluyen “mantener y ampliar un entorno que solicite, reciba y aprecie las aportaciones de todos”. Una presentación sobre el proceso por el que la ciudad podría pasar de un método de elección general a un sistema por distritos, ayudaría a fomentar la educación y el compromiso de la comunidad en un tema importante que afecta al gobierno municipal.

IMPLICACIONES FISCALES:

Se dispone de fondos suficientes para que el personal y un consultor lleven a cabo el trabajo de mapeo y de participación pública sobre el cambio del sistema electoral basado en elecciones generales al sistema basado en los distritos.

DETERMINACIÓN AMBIENTAL:

La ciudad de Monterey determinó que la acción propuesta no es un proyecto según la definición de la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) (CCR, título 14, capítulo 3 (directrices de la CEQA), artículo 20, sección 15378). Además, el artículo 15061 de las directrices CEQA incluye la norma general de que la CEQA sólo se aplica a las actividades que pueden causar un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente. Cuando se puede ver con certeza que no hay posibilidad de que la actividad en cuestión pueda tener un efecto significativo sobre el medio ambiente, la actividad no está sujeta a la CEQA. Debido a que la acción propuesta y este asunto no tienen la posibilidad de causar ningún efecto sobre el medio ambiente, o porque entra en una categoría de actividades excluidas como proyectos de acuerdo con la sección 15378 de las directrices de la CEQA, este asunto no es un proyecto.

Debido a que el asunto no causa un cambio físico directo o cualquier cambio indirecto razonablemente previsible sobre o en el medio ambiente, este asunto no es un proyecto.

Cualquier proyecto discrecional posterior resultante de esta acción se evaluará para determinar la aplicabilidad de la CEQA.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 119, Packet Page 204 ADJUNTO 5
ALTERNATIVAS:

El ayuntamiento podría optar por no recibir la presentación. Sin embargo, esto no se recomienda, ya que es una buena práctica para que la comunidad conozca el proceso de división de distritos antes de que se celebren las audiencias públicas y comience el proceso de elaboración de mapas.

DISCUSIÓN:

Calendario del proceso de conversión
En caso de que el ayuntamiento de Monterey adopte una resolución de intención para la transición de elecciones generales a elecciones por distritos, el ayuntamiento tendrá que llevar a cabo una serie de audiencias públicas en relación con los límites de los distritos que se van a redactar. Será importante que el ayuntamiento reciba la opinión y la información del público a través de las audiencias públicas y otros esfuerzos de participación.

Si el ayuntamiento adopta la resolución de intención de transición de elecciones generales a elecciones por distritos en su reunión del 16 de noviembre de 2021, para evitar una demanda de la Ley de Derecho al Voto de California (CVRA, por sus siglas en inglés), los mapas definitivos deben adoptarse antes del 14 de febrero de 2022, 90 días después de la adopción de la resolución. El proceso de audiencia pública, con requisitos establecidos para cada audiencia pública, es obligatorio según la ley estatal. El objetivo de estas audiencias es identificar los vecindarios, las “comunidades de interés” y otros factores que pueden utilizarse como factores para cuando se inicie el trazado de los borradores de los mapas. Durante la audiencia pública y el proceso de la información de la comunidad, se invita al público a proponer mapas de distritos completos.

El siguiente es un calendario tentativo para las audiencias públicas, que se escucharán según lo requerido por la ley estatal para la adopción de los mapas de distrito finales y la transición a las elecciones basadas en el distrito:
 Reunión ordinaria del 16 de noviembre de 2021 El ayuntamiento de Monterey considera la adopción de la resolución de intención para la transición de elecciones generales a elecciones por distritos.

El ayuntamiento de Monterey también recibe una presentación sobre el proceso de conversión.
 Reunión ordinaria del 7 de diciembre de 2021: Primera audiencia.

El ayuntamiento y la comunidad reciben una visión general del proceso e información sobre cómo dar su opinión sobre las “comunidades de interés” y cómo proponer mapas.

El público hace sus aportaciones.
 Reunión ordinaria del 21 de diciembre de 2021: Segunda audiencia.

El ayuntamiento recibe más información de la comunidad sobre las comunidades de interés.
 Reunión ordinaria del 28 de diciembre de 2021: Publicación de los primeros mapas.

El demógrafo (consultor municipal) proporciona tres opciones de mapas para que el Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 120, Packet Page 205 ADJUNTO 5
ayuntamiento los considere y dé su opinión sobre el mapa final. La ciudad lo publica al menos siete días antes de la tercera audiencia del 4 de enero de 2022.  Reunión ordinaria del 4 de enero de 2022: Tercera audiencia El ayuntamiento revisa los mapas propuestos, la secuencia de las elecciones y recibe los aportes del público.
 11 de enero de 2022: Publicación de los mapas revisados (si procede) La ciudad los publica al menos siete días antes de la cuarta audiencia del 18 de enero de 2022.
 Reunión ordinaria del 18 de enero de 2022: Cuarta audiencia sobre el mapa final, presentación de la ordenanza
El ayuntamiento revisa el mapa final y la secuencia de las elecciones, y recibe los aportes del público.
 25 de enero de 2022: Publicación del mapa final (si procede) La ciudad lo publica al menos siete días antes de la audiencia final del 1 de febrero de 2022.
 Reunión ordinaria del 1 de febrero de 2022: Quinta audiencia, aprobación del mapa y la ordenanza para las elecciones del distrito
El ayuntamiento recibe los aportes del público sobre el mapa y la secuencia de las elecciones, vota el mapa y la ordenanza que establece las elecciones basadas en los distritos.
 14 de febrero de 2022: Fecha límite para celebrar todas las audiencias públicas Esto es 90 días después de la aprobación de la resolución.

De acuerdo con el código electoral de California, “...la audiencia pública comenzará a una hora fija independientemente de su orden en la agenda, excepto que el ayuntamiento pueda concluir primero cualquier tema sobre el que se discuta o actúe, incluyendo cualquier información pública asociada, cuando llegue ese momento”. Estas audiencias públicas tendrán lugar probablemente a las 7:00 p.m.

Criterios para la creación de distritos
El ayuntamiento aceptará y fomentará la información de la comunidad sobre la composición de los distritos electorales aún por formar. Hay varios criterios obligatorios que la ciudad debe cumplir cuando se creen los distritos:
a) Igualdad de población entre los distritos (los distritos deberán ser casi iguales en población).
b) La raza no puede ser el factor o criterio “predominante” al trazar los distritos. c) Cumplimiento de la Ley Federal sobre el Derecho al Voto (FVRA, por sus siglas en inglés), que, entre otras cosas, prohíbe los distritos que diluyan los derechos de voto de las minorías, y fomenta la creación de un distrito con mayoría de minorías, si el grupo Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 121, Packet Page 206 ADJUNTO 5
minoritario es lo suficientemente grande, y dicho distrito puede trazarse sin que la raza sea el factor predominante.

Además, el código electoral de California exige, en la medida de lo posible, que las líneas de los distritos cumplan con la ley federal de derecho al voto y se adopten utilizando los siguientes criterios, en el siguiente orden de prioridad:

1. Distritos geográficamente contiguos (cada distrito municipal debe compartir una frontera común con el siguiente). Las zonas que sólo se encuentran en los puntos de las esquinas adyacentes no son contiguas. Las zonas que están separadas por el agua y no están conectadas por un puente, un túnel o un servicio regular de transbordador no son contiguas.

2. En la medida de lo posible, se respetará la integridad geográfica de cualquier barrio o comunidad de interés local de manera que se minimice su división. Una “comunidad de interés” es una población que comparte intereses sociales o económicos comunes que deben ser incluidos dentro de un único distrito a efectos de su representación efectiva y justa. Las comunidades de interés no incluyen las relaciones con partidos políticos, titulares o candidatos políticos.

3. Los límites de los distritos municipales deben ser fácilmente identificables y comprensibles para los residentes. En la medida de lo posible, los distritos del ayuntamiento deberán estar delimitados por barreras naturales y artificiales, por calles o por los límites de la ciudad.

4. En la medida de lo posible, y siempre que no entre en conflicto con los criterios anteriores de esta subdivisión, los distritos del ayuntamiento se trazarán para fomentar la compactación geográfica de manera que las áreas de población cercanas no sean obviadas en favor de poblaciones más distantes.

5. El ayuntamiento no adoptará los límites de los distritos del ayuntamiento con el propósito de favorecer o discriminar a un partido político.

Los criterios de mapeo han cambiado recientemente con la promulgación de la ley de mapas justos, que entró en vigor el 1 de enero de 2020. En ella se especifican nuevos criterios y plazos para que las ciudades adopten nuevos límites de distrito. Aunque esta ley también especifica nuevos plazos para la redistribución de distritos, éstos no se aplican a una ciudad que está adoptando distritos por primera vez, incluyendo cuando una ciudad adopta distritos del ayuntamiento con el propósito de hacer la transición de elegir a sus miembros del ayuntamiento en elecciones generales a elecciones basadas en distritos. (Código electoral, sección 21625(e)).

Mapeo de los distritos y proceso de información al público Según la ley estatal, las ciudades tienen prohibido dibujar un proyecto de mapa o mapas de los límites del ayuntamiento propuestos hasta después de la celebración de la primera audiencia pública. Después de la primera audiencia pública municipal de Monterey, el 7 de diciembre de 2021, el consultor demográfico y de mapeo municipal, Redistricting Partners, puede empezar a dibujar los mapas basándose en la información de la comunidad.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 122, Packet Page 207 ADJUNTO 5
Como ya se ha dicho, los criterios para la delimitación final de los distritos del ayuntamiento son prescriptivos, ya que exigen que los distritos sean casi iguales en población, contiguos geográficamente, respetuosos con las “comunidades de interés”, que sean fácilmente identificables por los residentes y que sean geográficamente compactos. En cualquier comunidad, incluida la de Monterey, esto no es poca cosa dada la diversidad de las características geográficas, los barrios y los límites de Monterey. Monterey cuenta con 30.218 residentes (censo de 2020) en 16 barrios definidos (con sus propias asociaciones), cuenta con importantes poblaciones militares en las propiedades del Ejército y la Marina de los Estados Unidos, y es el hogar de familias, estudiantes y otras poblaciones especiales.

Entre finales de noviembre y finales de diciembre de 2021, se espera que la ciudad solicite la opinión de la comunidad para ayudar a planificar, dibujar y definir los distritos de los concejales.

El personal de la ciudad y los consultores pedirán al público que:
 Comparta sus opiniones
 Definir su barrio o comunidad de interés
 Presentar borradores de mapas
 Comparta su información sobre los borradores de los mapas  Conectarse con otros miembros de la comunidad sobre el proceso del distrito y por qué es importante
Además de nuestras herramientas de participación en las redes sociales, la ciudad ha lanzado una página web sobre el distrito y el proceso de mapeo en el portal de participación pública de la ciudad, “opine sobre Monterey”, ubicado en: www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting con enlaces disponibles desde el sitio web principal de la ciudad, www.monterey.org.

Este sitio web también incluirá información sobre cómo se puede dar opinión a la ciudad, el calendario de las fechas de las audiencias públicas, la grabación o los resúmenes escritos de cada taller público, cada proyecto de mapa considerado por el ayuntamiento y el mapa final aprobado. Nuestra experiencia más reciente durante el proceso de divulgación pública del cannabis comercial ha demostrado que el portal web interactivo opine sobre Monterey es un método exitoso de participación comunitaria.

Además de las audiencias públicas, el estado exige que la información sobre la redistribución de distritos se facilite en “cualquier idioma que hable un grupo de residentes de la ciudad con un dominio limitado del inglés, que constituya el 3% o más de la población total de la ciudad, mayores a cuatro años para la que pueda determinarse el idioma”. Según la secretaría del estado de California, la ciudad de Monterey también debe proporcionar esta información a los residentes en español. De la población de 5 años o más, el 3,6% son hablantes de español que hablan inglés menos que “muy bien”, según las estimaciones de la oficina del censo de Estados Unidos. Los avisos de las audiencias públicas se publicarán en español. La ciudad hará que la información esté disponible en español y alentará a las comunidades no angloparlantes a participar en el proceso de mapeo.

Próximos pasos
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 123, Packet Page 208 ADJUNTO 5
El personal de la ciudad, junto con el consultor de mapeo y demográfico municipal, Redistricting Partners, hará una presentación el 16 de noviembre de 2021 sobre el proceso de conversión de las elecciones por distrito. El personal y el consultor estarán disponibles para responder a cualquier pregunta del ayuntamiento y del público. El personal anima al público a visitar www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting para mantenerse informado y comprometido con el tema.

La próxima reunión pública está prevista para el 7 de diciembre de 2021, cuando se celebre la primera audiencia pública. En ese momento, el ayuntamiento y la comunidad recibirán otra visión general del proceso e información específica sobre cómo dar su opinión sobre las “comunidades de interés” y cómo proponer mapas.

Adjunto: 1. Borrador del calendario electoral del distrito CVRA Los escritos distribuidos para la discusión o consideración de este asunto dentro de las 72 horas anteriores a la reunión, de acuerdo con el código de gobierno § 54957.5, estarán disponibles en el siguiente enlace: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 124, Packet Page 209 ADJUNTO 6 Informe de la Agenda
del Ayuntamiento
№07/19
DE: Christine Davi, Abogada Municipal
ASUNTO: Adoptar una resolución sobre la intención de hacer el cambio de elecciones generales a elecciones distritales de conformidad con la Sección 10010(e)(3)(A) del Código de Elecciones (no se trata de un proyecto bajo la CEQA) RECOMENDACIÓN:

Que el Consejo Municipal adopte una resolución sobre la intención de hacer el cambio de elecciones generales a elecciones distritales para los Concejales de la Ciudad. La resolución propuesta no ordena el cambio de la estructura del Consejo Municipal; iniciaría el proceso para implementar cuatro distritos en la ciudad para los escaños de concejales, y el escaño del alcalde seguiría siendo elegido de forma general.

IMPLICACIONES DE LA POLÍTICA:

La política de la ciudad es defender la constitución federal y la de California y tomar las medidas necesarias para garantizar la igualdad de protección ante la ley y el derecho al voto.

IMPLICACIONES FISCALES:

Se necesitará una cantidad significativa de tiempo del personal para realizar la transición a las elecciones distritales, incluyendo múltiples audiencias públicas para determinar los límites de los distritos y redactar una ordenanza propuesta estableciendo los distritos. Se estima que los costos del demógrafo para la elaboración de múltiples mapas, la asistencia con la divulgación pública y el análisis de los comentarios del público ascenderán a 42.000 dólares. Podrá ser necesario consultar con un asesor legal externo, lo que añadirá costos adicionales. Estos gastos no están incluidos en el presupuesto del año fiscal 2021/2022.

Bajo una ley relativamente nueva promulgada en 2016, si la Ciudad toma la decisión de hacer la transición a un sistema electoral distrital antes del 16 de noviembre de 2021, limitaría la exposición de la Ciudad a la Liga de Ciudadanos Latinoamericanos Unidos (LULAC), Distrito 12 (condados de Monterey, San Benito y Merced) por los honorarios y costos de abogados a

30.000 dólares (ajustado según el CPI anualmente a partir de 2018 según AB 350). (Sección 10010(f)(3) del Código Electoral).

DETERMINACIÓN MEDIOAMBIENTAL:

La Ciudad de Monterey determinó que la acción propuesta no es un proyecto según lo definido por la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA) (CCR, Título 14, Capítulo 3 ("Directrices CEQA"), Artículo 20, Sección 15378). Además, la Sección 15061 de las Directrices de la CEQA incluye la regla general de que la CEQA se aplica solo a las actividades que tienen el potencial de causar un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente. Cuando se puede ver con certeza que no existe la posibilidad de que la actividad en cuestión pueda tener un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente, la actividad no está sujeta a CEQA. Debido a que la acción propuesta y este asunto no tienen el potencial de causar ningún efecto en el medio ambiente, o porque se Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 125, Packet Page 210 ADJUNTO 6
encuentra dentro de una categoría de actividades excluidas como proyectos de conformidad con la sección 15378 de las Directrices de la CEQA, este asunto no es un proyecto. Debido a que el asunto no causa un cambio físico directo o indirecto razonablemente previsible en o al medio ambiente, este asunto no es un proyecto. Cualquier proyecto discrecional posterior que resulte de esta acción será evaluado para considerar su aplicabilidad bajo la CEQA.

ALTERNATIVAS CONSIDERADAS:

Una de las alternativas es cambiar el número de distritos propuestos (es decir, seis u ocho distritos) con un alcalde elegido de forma general.

Otra alternativa es hacer el cambio de un alcalde elegido de forma general y tener cinco, siete o nueve distritos. Por ejemplo, podría haber cinco distritos en la ciudad y el alcalde sería elegido de entre los cinco concejales.

Finalmente, el Consejo Municipal podría optar por no adoptar la resolución de intención, mantener un sistema electoral general y defender su sistema electoral en los tribunales.

DISCUSIÓN:

Sistemas electorales
La ciudad de Monterey actualmente utiliza un sistema de elección general. Esto significa que todos los votantes, sin importar dónde vivan en la Ciudad, tienen voz en la elección de cada miembro del Consejo Municipal. Los sistemas de votación generales pueden operar de forma que minimizan o cancelan la fuerza de voto de las minorías, derrotando así las opciones de los votantes minoritarios.

Un sistema electoral distrital es aquel en el que la ciudad está dividida en áreas geográficas separadas que componen los distritos, y los votantes que residen dentro del distrito eligen a un representante que también reside dentro del distrito.

Requerimiento para cambiar al sistema electoral distrital El 25 de septiembre de 2021, la Ciudad recibió un requerimiento de LULAC para cambiar a las elecciones distritales. (Adjunto 1). LULAC alega que estudió la demografía de la Ciudad y los resultados electorales, “… y determinó que una violación de la Sección 14025 et. seq. del Código Electoral de California, conocida como la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California de 2001 (CVRA) podría estar ocurriendo por votación polarizada". LULAC no quiso compartir su análisis de votación racialmente polarizada con la Ciudad, y la carta no contiene evidencia suficiente para respaldar la supuesta violación de la CVRA. Sin embargo, esta carta es un precursor de la presentación de una demanda contra la Ciudad por parte de LULAC en virtud de la CVRA, y desencadena un plazo muy corto para que la Ciudad actúe e implemente distritos para evitar gastos de abogados sustanciales.

El consejo Municipal se reunió a puerta cerrada los días 29 de septiembre de 2021, 19 de octubre de 2021, 27 de octubre de 2021 y 3 de noviembre de 2021 para considerar esta amenaza de litigio.

La Ley de Derechos Electorales de California
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 126, Packet Page 211 ADJUNTO 6
La Ciudad debe cumplir tanto con la Ley de Derechos Electorales federal como con la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California. Ambas leyes prohíben a la Ciudad imponer sistemas electorales que resulten en discriminación contra las minorías.

La Ley de Derechos Electorales de California de 2001 (“CVRA”) fue promulgada para implementar las garantías constitucionales de California de igual protección y derecho al voto. (Sección 14031 del Código Electoral). La CVRA se basa en la Ley de Derechos Electorales federal, pero los estándares legales son diferentes. La intención de la CVRA es ampliar las protecciones provistas por la ley federal. Su adopción fue motivada en parte por la falta de éxito de los demandantes de California al desafiar los sistemas electorales generales bajo la Ley de Derechos Electorales federal. Por lo tanto, la CVRA adoptó a propósito un estándar legal más bajo para facilitar el establecimiento de una reclamación de derechos de votación.

Votación racialmente polarizada
La CVRA requiere que un demandante demuestre la "votación racialmente polarizada", lo que significa "... votación en la que hay una diferencia, como se define en la jurisprudencia con respecto a la aplicación de la Ley de Derechos Electorales federal... en las elecciones de candidatos u otras elecciones electorales que son preferidos por los votantes en una clasificación protegida en comparación con el resto del electorado". (Sección 14026(e) del Código Electoral).

Hay que demostrar que “un número importante de miembros de grupos minoritarios suele votar por los mismos candidatos” (cohesión minoritaria); y que "la mayoría blanca vota lo suficiente como bloque para permitirle derrotar de forma usual al candidato preferido de la minoría" (Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) 478 U.S. 30.)
Lo que esto significa, por ejemplo, es que si una mayoría blanca supera en votos a la elección de candidatos latinx la mayor parte del tiempo, incluso si los votantes latinx tienden a congregarse alrededor del mismo candidato, hay una votación racialmente polarizada. Tengan en cuenta que el candidato latinx no necesita ser un candidato minoritario.

Dilución del voto
La CVRA prohíbe un sistema electoral general si diluye los derechos de los votantes que son miembros de una clasificación protegida. “No se puede imponer o aplicar un método de elecciones generales de una manera que menoscabe la capacidad de una clasificación protegida para elegir candidatos de su elección o su capacidad para influir en el resultado de una elección, como resultado de la dilución o la limitación de los derechos de los votantes que son miembros de una clasificación protegida... " (Sección 14027 del Código Electoral). Una clasificación protegida para los propósitos de la CVRA es una clasificación de votantes que son miembros de un grupo minoritario de raza, color o idioma. (Sección 14026(d) del Código Electoral).

La creación de distritos puede facilitar la capacidad de un grupo minoritario para elegir a sus representantes preferidos. La cuestión de la dilución del voto es si un grupo minoritario tendría más influencia en las elecciones con un sistema de elección alternativo que con el sistema actual.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 127, Packet Page 212 ADJUNTO 6
Según la ley federal, un análisis de dilución de votantes es una prueba bien definida. Debe demostrarse que un grupo minoritario es lo suficientemente grande y compacto como para representar la mayoría de los votantes en un distrito hipotético. Es decir, si una ciudad tiene una población minoritaria que podría ser el 51% de un distrito trazado de forma razonable, entonces ese distrito debe ser trazado bajo la ley federal si hay votaciones racialmente polarizadas. Esta prueba del 51% según la ley federal no es un elemento obligatorio según la CVRA; en cambio, es un "factor para determinar un remedio apropiado". (Sección 14028 del Código Electoral).

Por lo tanto, algo menos del 50% es suficiente para mostrar la dilución de votantes, pero ¿qué tan bajo puede ser ese porcentaje? El tribunal de primera instancia en el caso de Santa Mónica encontró que crear un distrito con un 30% de población minoritaria en edad de votar era suficiente para demostrar que el sistema sería mejor para esa población minoritaria que el sistema general de Santa Mónica. El tribunal de apelación no estuvo de acuerdo con el tribunal de primera instancia y dictaminó que el demandante en el caso de Santa Mónica no había mostrado dilución de votantes ya que el 30% no es suficiente para ganar la mayoría y elegir a alguien. El tribunal declaró que "... no hubo dilución porque el resultado con un sistema de votación es el mismo que el resultado con el otro: ninguna representación". Este caso ahora está pendiente ante la Corte Suprema de California en Ciudad de Santa Mónica v. Asociación de Vecinos de Pico (Caso Núm. S263972). El tribunal ha planteado la pregunta "¿Qué debe probar un demandante para establecer la dilución de votos según la [CVRA]?" Se prevé que la respuesta a esa pregunta por parte del tribunal proporcionará una orientación muy necesaria sobre cómo evaluar los méritos de las reclamaciones bajo la CVRA. A falta de esa guía, muchas ciudades están abandonando los sistemas electorales generales debido a la incertidumbre de la aplicación de la CVRA y las posibles consecuencias económicas.

Costos de litigio
La recomendación del personal de aprobar la resolución no se basa en una admisión por parte de la Ciudad de que un tribunal consideraría que su sistema electoral viola la CVRA. Más bien, el interés público puede ser mejor servido mediante la transición voluntaria a elecciones distritales por varias razones, incluida la incertidumbre del litigio y los costos extraordinarios de dicha demanda, incluso si la Ciudad saliera victoriosa.

La probabilidad de éxito en la defensa de una reclamación bajo la CVRA sobre los méritos es incierta sin la orientación de la Corte Suprema de California. Esto se debe a la ausencia de estándares objetivos claros sobre cómo se supone que un demandante debe probar un caso y cómo una ciudad debe defenderlo. Hay muy pocos precedentes con respecto a la aplicación de la CVRA, incluidos los elementos de una infracción y cómo se aplican a las ciudades, especialmente a ciudades como Monterey, donde la población de la clasificación protegida puede no ser lo suficientemente grande o compacta.

Si el Consejo Municipal decide mantener las elecciones generales y defender la demanda judicial con la que se amenaza, los honorarios y costos de los abogados probablemente excederían varios millones de dólares. Se proyecta que el costo de defender el sistema electoral general de la Ciudad en los tribunales será significativo debido a la posibilidad de tener que pagar los honorarios y costos de los abogados del demandante además de los costos de defensa de la Ciudad. Casi todas las ciudades que se han enfrentado un desafío legal han llegado a un acuerdo extrajudicial al aceptar cambiar voluntariamente a elecciones distritales. Aquellas que se han opuesto a los desafíos legales bajo la CVRA en los tribunales, Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 128, Packet Page 213 ADJUNTO 6
en última instancia, han adoptado voluntariamente o se han visto obligadas a adoptar las elecciones distritales. Las ciudades que han litigado contra la CVRA han generado grandes pagos por honorarios de abogados. Por ejemplo, en el caso de Santa Mónica, la moción del demandante para los honorarios de abogados con fecha del 3 de junio de 2019 solicitó que la Ciudad de Santa Mónica pagara más de 22 millones de dólares. Otro ejemplo reciente es el caso Yumori-Kaku v.Ciudad de Santa Clara, donde Santa Clara resolvió un desafío a su sistema electoral en abril de 2021 después de perder en una apelación. Santa Clara acordó pagar 6 millones de dólares (4.5 millones al demandante y1.5 millones en sus propios honorarios de abogados externos).

Procedimiento de creación de distritos
El personal y un demógrafo de la firma consultora Redistricting Partners, LP, harán una presentación sobre el procedimiento y las reglas requeridas para la transición a un sistema electoral distrital. Hay una serie de factores a considerar en el proceso de mapeo para asegurar que los distritos sean razonables y constitucionales.

La Ciudad tiene 90 días después de la adopción de la resolución de intención para adoptar una ordenanza que implementará el cambio en las próximas elecciones. (Sección 10010(e)(3)(A)- (B) del Código Electoral). Según lo autorizado por el estatuto, LULAC puede estar dispuesta a extender este plazo por otros 90 días para brindar más tiempo para la divulgación y aportes del público.
¿Perderán los concejales sus escaños durante su mandato? Los concejales no perderán sus asientos durante su mandato. De conformidad con la sección 21626 del Código Electoral, el mandato de cualquier concejal que haya sido elegido y cuyo mandato no haya expirado no se verá afectado por ningún cambio en los límites del distrito del que fue elegido.

El Consejo Municipal está compuesto por el alcalde y cuatro concejales. (Sección 4.1 de la Carta Constitutiva). Los concejales se eligen en cada Elección Municipal General y desempeñan sus cargos por un período de cuatro años. (Id.) El alcalde es elegido en cada elección municipal general y ocupa el cargo por un período de dos años. (Sección 3.1 de la Carta Constitutiva). Los mandatos actuales expiran de la siguiente manera:

Alcalde Clyde Roberson, diciembre de 2022
Vicealcalde Tyller Williamson, diciembre de 2022
Concejal Ed Smith, diciembre de 2022
Concejal Dan Albert, diciembre de 2024
Concejal Alan Haffa, diciembre de 2024
Se desarrollará una posible secuencia para establecer los distritos a través del proceso de audiencia pública. Todos los concejales de la ciudad sirven de forma general y pueden vivir en cualquier lugar de la ciudad hasta el final de sus mandatos en 2022 y 2024.

Se asignará un año electoral a cada uno de los distritos. Por ejemplo, se podrían asignar dos distritos a las elecciones de noviembre de 2022 y otros dos distritos a las elecciones de 2024.

Luego, en 2022 y 2024, los titulares tendrían que postularse para la reelección por distrito, si Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 129, Packet Page 214 ADJUNTO 6
residen en uno de los distritos candidatos a la elección ese año, o terminar sus mandatos y dejar el Consejo.

El escaño del alcalde seguirá siendo elegido de forma general a menos que el Consejo Municipal proponga un sistema diferente.
¿Se requiere una enmienda a la carta constitutiva?
La legislatura ha autorizado el cambio de elecciones generales a elecciones distritales sin presentar el asunto a los votantes. La sección 34886 del Código de Gobierno establece:

No obstante la Sección 34871 o cualquier otra ley, el cuerpo legislativo de una ciudad puede adoptar una ordenanza que requiera que los miembros del cuerpo legislativo sean elegidos por distrito o por distrito con un alcalde electivo, como se describe en la subdivisión (a) y (c) de la Sección 34871, sin necesidad de presentar la ordenanza a los votantes para su aprobación. Una ordenanza adoptada de conformidad con esta sección incluirá una declaración de que el cambio en el método de elección de los miembros del cuerpo legislativo se está realizando para promover los propósitos de la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California de 2001.

La Carta Constitutiva especifica que hay cuatro concejales, por lo que habrá cuatro distritos con un alcalde elegido de forma general. Por lo tanto, no se requeriría una enmienda a la Carta Constitutiva para cambiar a elecciones distritales con cuatro distritos y un alcalde elegido de forma general, y si los términos del cargo siguen siendo los mismos.

Adjuntos: 1. Resolución

2. Carta de LULAC
cc: LULAC, Distrito 12
Neighborhood Associations
Los escritos distribuidos para discusión o consideración sobre este asunto dentro de las 72 horas previas a la reunión, de conformidad con el Código de Gobierno §54957.5, estarán disponibles en el siguiente enlace: https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 130, Packet Page 215 RESOLUCIÓN NÚM. 21-119 C.S.

UNA RESOLUCIÓN DEL CONSEJO DE LA CIUDAD DE MONTEREY
INTENCIÓN DE INICIAR LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA ESTABLECER E IMPLEMENTAR

ELECCIONES DISTRITALES PARA LOS MIEMBROS DEL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL CONSIDERANDO QUE, la Ciudad de Monterey es una ciudad autónoma, debidamente organizada bajo la constitución y las leyes del Estado de California; CONSIDERANDO QUE, cuatro miembros del Consejo Municipal de Monterey son elegidos actualmente en elecciones generales, en las cuales cada miembro del Consejo Municipal es elegido por los votantes registrados de toda la Ciudad, y el alcalde es elegido por separado por los votantes registrados de toda la Ciudad, de conformidad con las Secciones 34871 y 34900 et seq. del Código de Gobierno de California, y Secciones 2.1 y 4.1 de la Carta Constitutiva;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, la sección 34886 del Código de Gobierno autoriza a cualquier ciudad a cambiar a un sistema distrital con un alcalde electivo sin la necesidad de presentar dicho cambio a los votantes;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, el Consejo Municipal ha determinado que lo mejor para la Ciudad es pasar de su actual sistema de elecciones generales a un sistema de elecciones por distrito para los miembros del Consejo Municipal cumpliendo con los propósitos de la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, la Ciudad tiene la intención de hacer la transición de un sistema general a un sistema por distrito de acuerdo con las reglas de procedimiento descritas en la Sección 34886 del Código de Gobierno y la sección 10010 del Código Electoral; CONSIDERANDO QUE, el 25 de septiembre de 2021, la Ciudad recibió una demanda de la Liga de Ciudadanos Latinoamericanos Unidos (LULAC), Distrito 12 (condados de Monterey, San Benito y Merced), para cambiar a elecciones distritales; CONSIDERANDO QUE, LULAC alega que estudió la demografía de la Ciudad y los resultados electorales, “… y determinó que una violación de la Sección 14025 et. seq., del Código Electoral de California, conocida como la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California de 2001 (CVRA) puede estar ocurriendo por votación polarizada”; CONSIDERANDO QUE, LULAC no compartió su análisis de votación polarizada con la Ciudad, y la carta no contiene evidencia suficiente para respaldar la supuesta violación de la CVRA. LULAC extendió la protección legal de la Ciudad bajo la sección 10010(f)(3) del Código Electoral hasta el 16 de noviembre de 2021;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, la adopción de esta resolución no se basa en una admisión por parte de la Ciudad de que un tribunal consideraría que su sistema de elección viola la CVRA.

Más bien, puede servirse mejor al interés público mediante la transición voluntaria a elecciones distritales por una serie de razones, incluida la incertidumbre del litigio y los costos extraordinarios de dicha demanda, incluso si la Ciudad saliera victoriosa; ADJUNTO 7
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 131, Packet Page 216 ADJUNTO 7
2 CONSIDERANDO QUE, la probabilidad de éxito en la defensa de una reclamación bajo CVRA sobre los méritos es incierta sin la dirección de la Corte Suprema de California. Esto se debe a la ausencia de estándares objetivos claros sobre cómo se supone que un demandante debe probar un caso y cómo una ciudad debe defenderlo. Hay muy pocos precedentes con respecto a la aplicación de la CVRA, incluidos los elementos de una infracción y cómo se aplican a las ciudades, especialmente a ciudades como Monterey, donde la población de la clasificación protegida puede no ser lo suficientemente grande o compacta; CONSIDERANDO QUE, la decisión esperada de la Corte Suprema de California en el caso de Santa Mónica beneficiaría a la Ciudad al tomar la decisión de cambiar su sistema electoral. Los datos demográficos de la Ciudad contienen menos poblaciones minoritarias que en la Ciudad de Santa Mónica, y al Consejo Municipal le preocupa que las elecciones distritales pueden no beneficiar, y pueden ser peores, para las poblaciones de clasificaciones protegidas, ya que pueden no ser lo suficientemente grandes o geográficamente compactas en la Ciudad.

La política de la Ciudad es defender la constitución federal y la de California y tomar las medidas necesarias para garantizar la igualdad de protección ante la ley y el derecho al voto; CONSIDERANDO QUE, la Ciudad comenzará a trabajar con Redistricting Partners, LP, para ayudar a la Ciudad a establecer mapas para las elecciones distritales; CONSIDERANDO QUE, antes de trazar un mapa preliminar de los límites propuestos de los distritos, la Ciudad celebrará al menos dos audiencias públicas durante no más de 30 días, momento en el cual se invita al público a proporcionar comentarios sobre la composición de los distritos;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, la Ciudad publicará y pondrá a disposición para su publicación al menos un mapa preliminar de la nueva distribución electoral de los distritos, incluida la secuencia potencial de elecciones que se muestra;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, una vez que el mapa preliminar se haya publicado durante al menos siete días, la Ciudad celebrará al menos dos audiencias públicas adicionales, durante no más de 45 días, momento en el que se invita al público a proporcionar comentarios sobre el contenido del mapa preliminar y la secuencia propuesta de elecciones antes de la audiencia pública en la que el Concejo Municipal adopta un mapa;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, si se revisa un mapa preliminar en o después de una audiencia pública, el mapa revisado se publicará y se pondrá a disposición del público al menos siete días antes de que la Ciudad decida adoptarlo;
CONSIDERANDO QUE, al determinar la secuencia final de las elecciones distritales escalonadas, el Consejo Municipal dará especial consideración a los propósitos de la CVRA y tomará en cuenta las preferencias expresadas por los miembros de los distritos; CONSIDERANDO QUE, el Consejo Municipal desea adoptar ahora criterios para guiar el establecimiento de distritos electorales consistentes con los requisitos legales que incluyen una población razonablemente equitativa y la Sección 2 de la Ley Federal de Derechos Electorales de 1965, así como otras preocupaciones y consideraciones importantes para la Ciudad;
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 132, Packet Page 217 ADJUNTO 7
3 CONSIDERANDO QUE, Ciudad de Monterey determinó que la acción propuesta no es un proyecto según lo definido por la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA) (CCR, Título 14, Capítulo 3 ("Directrices CEQA"), Artículo 20, Sección 15378). Además, la Sección 15061 de las Directrices de la CEQA incluye la regla general de que la CEQA se aplica solo a las actividades que tienen el potencial de causar un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente.

Cuando se puede ver con certeza que no existe la posibilidad de que la actividad en cuestión pueda tener un efecto significativo en el medio ambiente, dicha actividad no está sujeta a CEQA. Debido a que la acción propuesta y este asunto no tienen el potencial de causar ningún efecto en el medio ambiente, o porque se encuentra dentro de una categoría de actividades excluidas como proyectos de conformidad con la sección 15378 de las Directrices de la CEQA, este asunto no es un proyecto. Debido a que el asunto no causa un cambio físico directo o indirecto razonablemente previsible en o al medio ambiente, este asunto no es un proyecto.

Cualquier proyecto discrecional posterior que resulte de esta acción será evaluado para considerar su aplicabilidad bajo la CEQA;
AHORA, POR LO TANTO, EL CONSEJO DE LA CIUDAD DE MONTEREY RESUELVE:

1. Los considerandos anteriores son verdaderos y correctos y se incorporan aquí como referencia.

2. El Consejo Municipal resuelve por la presente, de conformidad con la Sección 10010 del Código Electoral, su intención de adoptar un sistema de elecciones por distrito mediante ordenanza según lo autorizado por la Sección 34886 del Código de Gobierno de California.

3. El Consejo Municipal resuelve contratar a un demógrafo calificado, realizar al menos cinco audiencias públicas y publicar al menos un mapa preliminar y una secuencia escalonada.

4. El demógrafo de la Ciudad, actuando bajo la supervisión del Administrador de la Ciudad, está autorizado por la presente a dirigir y formular uno o más escenarios de distritos electorales para su revisión por el público y el Consejo Municipal en dos o más audiencias públicas, de acuerdo con cronograma propuesto por la Ciudad.

5. Trabajando con el demógrafo, el personal de la Ciudad debe publicitar los mapas, información, avisos, agendas y otros materiales relevantes relacionados con las elecciones por distrito y establecer un medio de comunicación para responder preguntas del público.

6. El Administrador de la Ciudad está autorizado a tomar todas y cada una de las otras acciones necesarias para dar efecto a esta Resolución.

APROBADO Y ADOPTADO POR EL CONSEJO DE LA CIUDAD DE MONTEREY el 16 de noviembre de 2021, mediante la siguiente votación:

A FAVOR: 5 CONCEJALES: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson EN CONTRA: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
AUSENTES: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
ABSTENCIONES: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
APROBADO:

ATESTIGUA: /s/
Alcalde de dicha ciudad
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 133, Packet Page 218 ADJUNTO 7
4 /s/
Secretario de dicha ciudad
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 134, Packet Page 219 ADJUNTO 8
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 135, Packet Page 220 ¡Cuéntenos sobre su comunidad!
Ayude a dar forma al futuro de los distritos del Ayuntamiento en la ciudad de Monterey El Ayuntamiento de Monterey ha iniciado el proceso de transición a las elecciones de distrito, utilizando los datos del censo de los Estados Unidos para trazar los límites de los cuatro (4) distritos del Ayuntamiento de la ciudad de Monterey. Esto garantiza que los distritos estén equilibrados en cuanto a la población. El Ayuntamiento quiere saber su opinión sobre cómo deben trazarse estos límites. Llene este formulario para informar al Ayuntamiento sobre su comunidad de interés.

Mantener las comunidades de interés juntas es un criterio de alto valor en el proceso de redistribución de distritos
¿Qué es una comunidad de interés?
Una comunidad de interés es un grupo de personas de una misma zona geográficamente definible que comparten intereses sociales y económicos comunes. Algunos ejemplos de comunidades de interés son:
• Personas que viven en el centro de la ciudad o en un vecindario establecido • Personas mayores
• Comunidades LGBTQIA+
• Estudiantes que viven cerca de los campus universitarios • Poblaciones militares
• Residentes que comparten un idioma común
• Personas que utilizan los mismos sistemas de transporte ¿Qué criterios ayudarán al Ayuntamiento a comprender la importancia de su comunidad en el proceso de redistribución de distritos?
Al documentar su comunidad, es importante responder a las siguientes preguntas para ayudar al Ayuntamiento en el proceso de redistribución de distritos:

1. ¿Su comunidad tiene una cultura, características o vínculos compartidos?

2. ¿Su comunidad es de naturaleza geográfica? ¿Se puede localizar su comunidad en un mapa? ¿Existe densidad dentro de su comunidad?

3. Describa la relación de su comunidad con la ciudad y cómo se ve afectada por las decisiones políticas tomadas por el Ayuntamiento.

El público puede presentar cualquier testimonio, pero es importante recordar que su aporte puede ser mejor aprovechado si aborda estas tres preguntas.
¿Qué puede hacer para seguir participando en el proceso de redistribución de distritos?

1. Presente sus comentarios sobre su comunidad de interés llenando este formulario y devuélvalo:
• Por correo electrónico enviando una foto o un PDF de este formulario a:
[email protected]
• Por correo en EE. UU.: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
• Entregándolo en: Biblioteca Pública de Monterey, 625 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
Abierto de martes a sábado de las 10 a.m. a 6 p.m.

2. Asista a una de las reuniones públicas del Ayuntamiento de la ciudad de Monterey, cuyos horarios y lugares se publicarán en nuestra página web:
www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
ADJUNTO 9
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 136, Packet Page 221

1. ¿Cuáles son los intereses comunes de su comunidad? Describa su importancia:

2. Explique la ubicación geográfica de su comunidad de interés. ¿Cuáles son las fronteras físicas?

3. ¿Cuál es la justificación para que su comunidad de interés sea utilizada en el proceso de redistribución de distritos del Ayuntamiento? Describa cómo los temas que se presentan ante el Ayuntamiento de Monterey tienen un impacto en su comunidad.

4. ¿Qué más le gustaría contarnos sobre su comunidad?
Cómo enviar el formulario:

Correo electrónico:
[email protected]
En persona: Déjelo en manos de un
miembro del personal en la Biblioteca
Pública de Monterey, 625 Pacific St.,
abierta de martes a sábado, de 10 a.m. a 6
p.m.

Correo:

Monterey City Clerk
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Formulario de comunidad de intereses
Proporcionar la siguiente información es opcional. Si proporciona una dirección de correo electrónico, le enviaremos información actualizada sobre el proceso.

Nombre: Correo electrónico:
¿Preguntas o comentarios?
¡Queremos saber de usted! Envíe un
correo electrónico a la ciudad de
Monterey a [email protected]
o visite nuestra página web en
haveyoursaymonterey.org/districting
ADJUNTO 9
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 137, Packet Page 222

EJERCICIO DE

MAPEO DISTRITAL
NOMBR
E
OAKLAN Escribe las estimaciones de población para cada uno de tus districtos dibujados. ~7,500 Población objetivo por distrito DISTRITO1 DISTRITO 2 DISTRITO 3 DISTRITO 4

LAS REGLAS
• Cree un solo distrito del consejo de la ciudad
o cree un plan completo de cuatro distritos.
• Los nuevos distritos deberían tener una
población de alrededor de 7,500 habitantes.
• El distrito más grande no debe tener más de
750ersonas más que el distrito más pequeño.SOBRE LOS BLOQUESCada uno de estos bloques se basa en la geografía del censo. Los números se redondean para facilitar el proceso de mapeo para el público.

Monterey City Clerk580 Pacific StreetMonterey, CA 93940 CORREO ELECTRÓNICO [email protected] Monterey Public Library625 Pacific StreetMonterey, CA 93940

UNA VEZ COMPLETADO

CORREO A
CORREO ELECTRÓNICO
ADJUNTO 9
Council Regular Meeting, 1/18/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 138, Packet Page 223

Monterey City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Monterey City Council
January 18, 2022