CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, September 7, 2022, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.
Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
CHAMBER CAPACITY SEATING IS LIMITED AND PROVIDED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS.
THE VIRTUAL MEETING IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE
ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF
TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
888 788 0099 US (Toll-free)
877 853 5247 US (Toll-free)
669 900 9128
669 219 2599
Webinar ID: 209 579 290#
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.
Help Line 831-648-3128
MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
The public may also view the meeting on the Peninsula Channel 25.
AGENDA
PGCC 9-7-2022
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
A. Remote Teleconference - AB 361 Action required by 8/3/2022 PG 6 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Ratify Resolution No. 21-029 Emergency Teleconferencing authorizing remote teleconference meetings of all City legislative bodies for the following 30 days in accord with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Monterey Peninsula College 75th Anniversary PG 11 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive proclamation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Other
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council’s consideration of such items at the time such items are called. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.
CONSENT AGENDA
PGCC 9-7-2022
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of the August 17, 2022 City Council Closed Session and Regular Meetings PG 13 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Amend the City of Pacific Grove's Conflict of Interest Code Action required by October 3, 2022. PG 21
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 2.40, Conflict of Interest, to account for the addition, deletion, and modification of positions listed as “designated employees”; determine that, for the purposes of the City of Pacific Grove’s (City) Conflict Code, the City is the “agency;” approve the updated Conflict Code; and direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. 2022 Sanctuary Annual Management Plan PG 28
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive report.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15307, Class 7, Actions by PGCC 9-7-2022
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15307, Class 7, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions PG 70
Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action: Receive report of emergency directives/modifications.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Beautification and Natural Resources Committee Minutes: July 19, 2022 PG 72 Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Economic Development Commission Minutes: June 9, 2022 and July 14, 2022 PG 78 Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action: Receive minutes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Minutes: May 28, 2022, and July 26, 2022 PG 83 Reference: Cathy Madalone, Chief of Police
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter. Public hearings on non-controversial matters or for which testimony is not anticipated may be placed on the Consent Agenda, PGCC 9-7-2022
non-controversial matters or for which testimony is not anticipated may be placed on the Consent Agenda, but shall be removed if any person requests a staff presentation or wishes to be heard on the matter.
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. LULAC District Elections Letter PG 93
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Direct the City Attorney to advise Council on a response to the League of United Latin American Citizens’ (LULAC) demand for district elections and authorize the Mayor to sign a legal services agreement with the law firm of Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni, LLP to provide legal advice to the City Council in regard to the issues of the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”).
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Remote Teleconference - AB 361 Action required by 8/3/2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Ratify Resolution No. 21-029 Emergency Teleconferencing authorizing remote teleconference meetings of all City legislative bodies for the following 30 days in accord with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
DISCUSSION
Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law on September 16, 2021 to become effective on October 1, 2021. AB 361 extends the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 and Executive Order N-35-20 and is effective until January 1, 2024. AB 361 amends sections of the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to continue to hold teleconference meetings during a state of emergency if the legislative body finds that as a result of the proclaimed state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
Assembly Bill 361 requires the City within 30 days of holding a virtual meeting for the first time, and every 30 days thereafter, to make findings ratifying the state of emergency.
The exact language of the Bill is as follows:
If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency. (B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
At its October 6, 2021 meeting, Council approved Resolution No. 21-029 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the State of Emergency Proclaimed on March 4, 2020, and Authorizing Remote PGCC 9-7-2022
Teleconference Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies for the Following 30 days in Accord wth the Ralph M. Brown Act. Resolution No. 21-029 has effect for only 30 days. The Council has ratified that resolution each month since and must now renew the effect of the resolution by ratifying it again or adopting another.
This item will be added to the Council's first meeting of the month as the first item of business.
OPTIONS
Take no action and resume in person meetings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Transparency, Accountability and Communication: Implement programs, processes, revisions, and training to improve and advance the City's efforts.
Attachments
Reso 21-029
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 2 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: Monterey Peninsula College 75th Anniversary CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.
Attachments
Proclamation
PGCC 9-7-2022
Mayor’s Proclamation
Recognizing the 75th Anniversary of Monterey Peninsula College (MPC) WHEREAS, on September 5, 1947, first classes began at Monterey High School and on September 10, 1948, first classes began at its Fremont Street campus; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1949, Thirty-four students receive their degrees at MPC’s first graduation ceremony; and
WHEREAS, MPC celebrates significant historical events such as MPC track star Jackie Williams running the 100-yard dash in 9.7 seconds on June 9, 1949 - a school record that still stands today; receiving a speech from Former First Lady and Civil Rights activist Eleanor Roosevelt on January 16, 1960; receiving a speech from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on March 24, 1961; allowing over 20,000 people camp on the football field during the Monterey Pop Festival form June 16 – 18, 1967; receiving a photography workshop from Ansel Adams on March 24 – 28, 1970; and
WHEREAS, since its humble beginnings in 1947, MPC has established itself as essential to the educational and cultural development of the Monterey Peninsula and has improved the lives of innumerable students, and by extension their families and its communities; and
WHEREAS, as MPC approaches its 75th year, it now offers exceptional educational opportunities at its campus in Monterey, its Education Center at Marina, its Public Safety Training Center in Seaside, its partner high schools, and online, as well as comprehensive supportive resources and specialized programs dedicated to ensuring its students have the tools they need to succeed; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove, we recognize and commend Monterey Peninsula College on the eve of this special occasion, for its steadfast, 75 year-long commitment to transforming lives through education for those here in Pacific Grove and on the Monterey Peninsula. ________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 5 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Minutes of the August 17, 2022 City Council Closed Session and Regular Meetings
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Appprove minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes
PGCC 9-7-2022
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
CHAMBER CAPACITY SEATING IS LIMITED AND PROVIDED ON A
FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS.
THE VIRTUAL MEETING IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE
ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson. Mayor Pro Tem Amelio joined the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember McAdams, Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment was received.
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: 77 Asilomar, Pacific Grove (Pacific Grove Golf Links) Agency Negotiator(s): Ben Harvey, City Manager and Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager
Negotiating Party(ies): Michael Sharp, PGA, CourseCo. President/CEO and Tom Bugbee, CourseCo. Chief Operating Officer
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
PGCC 9-7-2022
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
CHAMBER CAPACITY SEATING IS LIMITED AND PROVIDED ON A
FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS.
THE VIRTUAL MEETING IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF
TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith and Tomlinson.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Peake led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Blue Zones Project Monterey County Presentation
Action: Council received the presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
PGCC 9-7-2022
Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: 77 Asilomar, Pacific Grove (Pacific Grove Golf Links) Agency Negotiator(s): Ben Harvey, City Manager and Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager
Negotiating Party(ies): Michael Sharp, PGA, CourseCo. President/CEO and Tom Bugbee, CourseCo. Chief Operating Officer
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
City Attorney Brian Pierik reported no reportable action taken.
B. Council and staff made general announcements.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment was received from Vince Tuminello, Al Sacks, Alex White, Noah, Henry, Eleanor, Wyatt, Randy, Thomas, Milo, Vanessa, Kelly, Eli, Mia, Nico, Kelsea Richmond, Logan, Amber Acosta, Holly, Hannah Braymer, Samantha Perez, Carson, Hazel, Kristen Phelps, Debby Beck, Devon Keller, Kirby Garry, Tyler Rizo, Mike Wachs, Stephanie Driscoll, Kelly Sorensen, Elouise Shim, Kurt Conrad, Rodney Rodriguez, Amy, Tyler Ellis, John Hasselbauer, Andrew, Jordan Murdock, Nick Stahl, Misty Sherman and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember McAdams and seconded by Councilmember Smith, Council voted to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the August 3, 2022 City Council Closed Session and Regular Meetings Action: Approved minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution Accepting Irrevocable Gift Action required by August 17, 2022.
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-043 accepting an irrevocable Gift from the Laws Family for the Library, and designate naming of the Library's Local History Room for the useful life of the Gift.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Affirming Support of Reproductive Freedom
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-044 Affirming Support of Reproductive Freedoms.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 9-7-2022
7. ORDINANCES
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Check Register Report – July 2022
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Core Revenue Report Status for July 2022
Action: Received the Core Revenue Status Report for July 2022.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions
Action: Received report of emergency directives/modifications.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Agreement Amendments – Time Extensions
Action: Authorized time extension amendments for the following agreements:
George Washington Park Management Plan with Dudek
Lovers Point Pier Assessment with GHD
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Architectural Review Board Minutes: July 12, 2022
Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Minutes: July 11, 2022 Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Museum Board Minutes: February 8, 2022
Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: June 9, 2022
Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 9-7-2022
E. Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Minutes: June 28, 2022 Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the Police Officers Association (POA) Action required by August 17, 2022.
Public comment was received from POA President Wiley Griffin.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted to approve Resolution No. 22-045 approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the Police Officers Association to cover the period of July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024.
Motion carried 6-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: Councilmember Coletti.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Amend the City of Pacific Grove's Conflict of Interest Code Action required by October 3, 2022.
No public comment was received.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember McAdams, Council voted to introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 2.40, Conflict of Interest, to account for the addition, deletion, and modification of positions listed as “designated employees”; determine that, for the purposes of the City of Pacific Grove’s (City) Conflict Code, the City is the “agency;” approve the updated Conflict Code; and direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 9-7-2022
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Focused General Plan Update
Public comment was received from Tony Ciani, Mark Chakwin, Andrew Kubica, Steven Lilley, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Smith, Council voted to receive a report on actions to prepare a focused General Plan update; direct City staff to initiate a focused General Plan update to the Land Use, Safety, and Transportation Elements of the City's General Plan to meet the minimum requirements triggered by the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update; and authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals for professional services to prepare a focused General Plan update, Zoning Code and Map(s) update, objective design and development standards, and associated environmental review and document preparation.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Roadwork Restrictions During Harbor Seal Pupping Season Public comment was received from Nicole Rike, Debby Beck, Tony Ciani, Melanie Moreno, Lisa Ciani, Michelle Raine, Bill Kampe, Cari Rotoli, Lori McDonnell, Janet Cohen, Mark Chakwin, Carmelita Garcia, Suzanne Edwards, David Blaskovich, Michelle Knight, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Kathy Nolet, Thom Akeman, and Kim Akeman.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember McAdams, Council voted to direct the City Attorney to return with a draft ordinance to implement roadwork restrictions during harbor seal pupping season and use the PowerPoint as a template for that ordinance.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Coletti, McAdams, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 9-7-2022
C. Automatic Access to Public Comments
Public comment was received from Sally Moore, Mike Wachs, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, Tony Ciani, and Janet Cohen.
Action: Council held a conceptual discussion to provide automatic access to public comments received and provided direction to staff.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 9:53 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 7 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Amend the City of Pacific Grove's Conflict of Interest Code Action required by October 3, 2022.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter
2.40, Conflict of Interest, to account for the addition, deletion, and modification of positions listed as “designated employees”; determine that, for the purposes of the City of Pacific Grove’s (City) Conflict Code, the City is the “agency;” approve the updated Conflict Code; and direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
No changes were made between the first and second readings of this ordinance. The City Clerk caused a summary of this ordinance to be published on August 25, 2022.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 (Act) requires, among other things, that local governments adopt and maintain a Conflict of Interest Code, Gov. Code §87300. Agencies must designate all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions, and assign specific disclosure categories to each position. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC or Commission), created under the Act, assists state and local agencies in developing and enforcing conflict-of-interest codes.
On December 20, 2006, by Resolution No. 06-032, the City Council adopted a Conflict of Interest Code.
The Act requires every agency that has adopted a Conflict Code to review its Code on at least a biennial basis (to be conducted each even numbered year) to ensure the Code reflects the organization’s current staffing, and submit an amended Code, if necessary. Id.,§ 87306.5. The Conflict Code was last amended in 2020. A review of the City’s Conflicts Code revealed revisions are required due to the addition of positions not previously listed, and the deletion of positions that have been eliminated. The exhibits attached to the proposed Ordinance included with this report reflect these changes.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
PGCC 9-7-2022
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for this amendment.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Transparency, Accountability and Communication: Implement programs, processes, revisions, and training to improve and advance the City's efforts.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance
Notice
PGCC 9-7-2022
1 ORDINANCE NO. 22-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
TO AMEND AND CODIFY THE CITY’S CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (City) desires that elected and appointed officials be prohibited from making, participating in the making, or attempting to use their official positions to influence a governmental decision in which they know or have reason to know they have a financial interest; and WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act (Act), set forth at Government Code section 81000 et seq, requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code (Conflict Code); and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2006, the City Council adopted a Conflict Code; and
WHEREAS, the Act directs every local agency that has adopted a Conflict Code to review its Code on at least a biennial basis (to be conducted each even numbered year) to ensure the Code reflects the organization’s current staffing, and submit an amended Code, if necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Council last amended the Conflict Code on September 2, 2020, by Ordinance No. 20-020; and
WHEREAS, upon biennial review by the City Attorney’s office, it was determined that an amendment to the Conflict Code was required to reflect personnel changes that resulted in the creation of positions, and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will supersede Ordinance No. 20-020, and will codify the current conflict-of-interest requirements, providing means to further promote disclosure of conflicts and set forth disqualification procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.
SECTION 2. The text set forth in existing Section 2.40.030 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, entitled “Disclosure Categories,” shall be changed by the deletion of all text shown in strikeout text (strikeout text) and the addition of all text shown in bold, italic, underscored text (bold, italic, underscored text), as follows:
2.40.030 Disclosure Categories
Designated officials are assigned to specific categories of financial disclosure.
PGCC 9-7-2022
2 (a) Designated Positions and Disclosure Categories.
(1) Category 1.
(A) Mayor;
(B) Councilmembers;
(C) City manager;
(D) City attorney;
(E) City clerk;
(F) City clerk/DEI coordinator;
(GF) Assistant city attorney;
(HG) Administrative services director
(I) Administrative services director / Assistant city manager; (JH) Public works director;
(K) Public works director / Deputy city manager;
(LI) Police chief;
(J) Community and economic development director;
(MK) Library director;
(NL) Community development director;
(OM) Human resources director;
(PN) Members of the planning commission;
(QO) Members of the architectural review board;
(RP) Members of the historic resources commission;
(SQ) Members of the economic development commission;
(TR) Consultant/new position.
PGCC 9-7-2022
3 (2) Category 2.
(A) Administrative services manager;
(B) Program manager;
(C) Program manager, senior;
(D) Police commander;
(E) Environmental programs manager;
(F) Public works superintendent;
(G) Planner, senior;
(H) Police administrative services manager;
(I) Police administrative services manager/Public information officer (JI) Police records supervisor;
(KJ) Human resources manager;
(LK) Management analyst;
(ML) Code compliance officer;
(NM)Senior librarian;
(ON) Construction project manager;
(PO) Members of the recreation board.
(b) Disclosure Categories.
(1) Category 1 must report all interests in real property investments, business positions and sources of income, including gifts, loans, and travel payments from any source located in, doing business in, or planning to do business within the jurisdiction of the city; and
(2) Category 2 must report all investments, business positions and sources of income, including gifts, loans, and travel payments from any source located in, doing business in, or planning to do business within the jurisdiction of the city. (c) All other city employees and members of commissions, boards, committees or cityappointees to other local agency bodies with significant decision-making authority, even PGCC 9-7-2022
4 if not listed in subsection (a) of this section, are also subject to disclosure requirements as their interests, holdings or sources of income relate to any decision that official makes.
Each employee and member of commissions, boards, or committees must adhere to ethical principles at the time that a decision is made. [Ord. 20-020 § 2, 2020].
SECTION 3. Nos. 08-028, 13-010, 16-013, 18-011, 20-020, and all other actions in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby rescinded.
SECTION 4. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth day following passage and adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS 7
th day of September, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_________________________
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 8 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: 2022 Sanctuary Annual Management Plan
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15307, Class 7, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove has worked in partnership with Creekside Center for Earth Observation for the consulting services for the Monarch Grove Sanctuary. On a yearly basis, Dr. Stuart B. Weiss, has worked with City staff to identify management activities that need to occur in the Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park. Dr. Weiss reports highlights, recent history and current conditions, long term views, and recommendations. The City has made great strides in the Sanctuary over the last few years.
There are two major management actions that are recommended for this year:
1) Two tall dead Monterey pines pose a major risk to other trees and potentially to visitors should they fall uncontrolled. These trees are recommended for removal. They do not provide wind shelter or other habitat value and are a liability. Leaving the trunks as wildlife snags, with irregular tops (not “telephone poles”) can create a more natural appearance.
2) Thinning a group of Monterey Cypress (planted in the mid-2000’s) in the NW section MGS.
Removing 2 trees in this group will allow for faster growth of the remaining trees without compromising wind shelter.
In addition to the major items noted above, other recommendations include:
1. A hiatus on major plantings until a full inventory and structural assessment is completed as part of a new management plan. (Staff is seeking grant funding for this effort.) There are plenty of new trees in the ground for now.
2. Boxed trees can be moved around as desired. However, trees should not be put into the ground until the new assessment is completed and planting sites selected.
PGCC 9-7-2022
3. The only exception is that one or two potted trees in the gap on the Hotel property can be planted.
Avoiding overplanting is essential for individual tree health and rapid growth.
4. Initiate thinning the weakest crowded eucalyptus in the SE corner to allow for development of healthier trees. Some of these trees are nearly dead. Plan on removing a few trees each year until a suitable density (10’ spacing) is achieved. The remaining trees should respond strongly to increased space and fill in the canopy rapidly.
5. The yellow Buddleia bushes be pruned to refresh growth and force flowering in the fall.
Consultations with a master gardener or other horticultural expert is recommended.
6. Maintain and cage pine saplings in the interior.
7. The irrigation regime for new plantings be continued, but trees and shrubs should be weaned off irrigation after a few years once established.
The City of Pacific Grove is dedicated to preservation and the enhancement of the Monarch Sanctuary.
Annually Dr. Stuart Weiss performs his walkthrough with City staff and prepares the management activities for implementation prior to the overwintering months, which are October 1 – April 30. Prior to the City performing the recommended maintenance activities, the annual management plan is brought forth to the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and then sent to California Fish and Wildlife for their review. The management plan was presented to the BNRC at their July 2022 meeting. The management report is then sent to Fish and Wildlife because they hold the Conservation Easement which grants them oversite of the Sanctuary and all activities that occur within the sanctuary property. City staff hosted a California Fish and Wildlife representative on August 5, 2022, at the sanctuary to discuss this year's proposed activities.
Additionally, City staff hosted a walkthrough of the Monarch Sanctuary on August 26th and discussed the proposed maintenance activities within the Sanctuary for this year. 40 members of the public joined City staff and Dr. Stu Weiss to walk the sanctuary grounds.
City staff will now implement the recommended activities, and it is anticipated that all the tasks can be completed in a few days, with some general cleanup also occurring along the pathways. City staff will be performing these activities prior to the start of the overwintering season.
OPTIONS
Do nothing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All proposed activities will be funded through Public Works operations budget.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: City Asset Stewardship: Repair, maintain and improve City assets, including streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, buildings, and parks and trails.
Attachments
2022 Management Plan Report
PGCC 9-7-2022
1 Stuart B. Weiss, Ph.D.
www.creeksidescience.com
[email protected]
650 269-2876
Assessment and proposed
management activities Monarch
Grove Sanctuary and George
Washington Park for 2022
Monarch clusters in Monarch Grove Sanctuary November 23, 2021 PGCC 9-7-2022
2 Executive Summary
In 2021, the Western monarch butterfly migration made a great comeback from perilously low numbers in 2020. The California overwintering population was estimated at ~250,000 butterflies during the Thanksgiving Counts. The severe fluctuations are the result of multiple causes; in short, in 2020 nearly everything went wrong during the breeding and migration seasons, and in 2021, everything went right, at least in the southern part of the range. Brief narratives in this report will address potential causes of the declines and rebound.
Peak numbers at Monarch Grove Sanctuary (MGS) were estimated at 12,000-14,000 from early-November through mid-December. Numbers dropped to 9,500 in early January, following a series of intense storms in mid- and late-December. This 32% drop from December to January was similar to historical observations at MGS and many other sites. Mass emigration started in early February with the onset of warm weather.
After arriving in October, the butterflies clustered in sunny areas on the southern edge of the grove, primarily on Monterey cypress. By mid-November, they clustered in the interior of the grove on Monterey pines and largely remained there through the remainder of the season. Eucalyptus was hardly used at all in the 2021-22 overwintering season.
New plantings of Monterey cypress were installed in 2021 and the trees have established and are actively growing. Boxed trees were placed along the eastern edge of the Sanctuary, and on the western edge of the Hotel property.
The major management actions recommended for 2022 are:
1) Two tall dead Monterey pines pose a major risk to other trees and potentially to visitors should they fall uncontrolled. These trees are recommended for removal – they do not provide wind shelter or other habitat value and are a liability. Leaving the trunks as wildlife snags, with irregular tops (not “telephone poles”) can create a more natural appearance. 2) Thinning a group of Monterey cypress (planted in the mid-2000’s) in the NW section MGS Removing 2-3 trees in this group will allow for faster growth of the remaining trees without compromising wind shelter
The time is ripe for developing a new comprehensive site management plan that will guide activities well into the future. Funding is likely available via the Monterey County Resource Conservation District (as part of a large statewide program) and with the participation of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (which hold the conservation easement on MGS). The key elements of this management plan are discussed in some detail, including some examples of habitat mapping with LiDAR.
PGCC 9-7-2022
3 Introduction
The following recommendations and assessments are based on site visits and consultations with City Arborist Albert Weisfuss and Public Works Director Daniel Gho in Spring 2022. They are presented in the context of the 2011 Management Plan (Weiss 2011) and subsequent consultations with City staff and residents, including annual recommendations from 2014-2021 (Weiss 2014-2021). The recommendations are based on previous scientific work, professional judgment, input from stakeholders in Pacific Grove, and field assessments. They attempt to carefully balance monarch habitat needs, hazard reduction, and forest health, based on both short-term and long-term perspectives.
In 2020, City Arborist Albert Weisfuss completed a detailed report with his recommendations, and those were considered in the 2020 report (Weisfuss 2020). The assessments and recommendations (with a few noted exceptions) are a solid foundation for guiding management, and the input of a professional arborist is essential especially on matters of tree health and species suitability.
Background data on monarch numbers at Monarch Grove Sanctuary (Xerces Society Thanksgiving Counts and New Year’s Counts) provide context of the entire California monarch population. Butterfly monitoring data from the Pacific Grove Museum since 2013 have documented monarch use patterns and habitat suitability relative to weather and time of season. This reporting on monarch abundance and distribution provides a long-term accessible record for the local community.
The major elements of this report are:
1. Explanation of potential causes of the western monarch population collapse in 2020, followed by a sharp recovery in 2021.
2. The monitoring data from the PG Museum on monarch numbers and distribution, and interpretation.
3. A graphical view and description of the output of the new Ambient Weather station in the Sanctuary, and a comparison to Monterey Airport data
4. A brief review of management actions completed in 2020 and 2021
5. Recommendations for management actions in summer 2022
6. Discussion of opportunities for a new management plan and the elements of that plan.
7. A repeat and update of the long-term management considerations from previous reports, where still relevant.
8. Photographs of monarchs and habitat with notes.
9. A supplemental document with some visualizations and analysis of LiDAR data from 2016, as a demonstration of the potential of this new technology.
PGCC 9-7-2022
4 Monarch Crash of 2018-2020
The overwhelming reality of the 2020-21 overwintering seasons in California was a population crash to less than 2,000 butterflies at the overwintering sites during the Thanksgiving Counts (Table 1). None were observed in Pacific Grove that year.
The causes of this crash, a 99+% decline from the most recent peak of ~300,000 monarchs in 2015 and 2016, are complicated and multifaceted. The following is an account of the declines, based on published information (see Literature Cited) and discussions with monarch experts. The exact mix of causes remains uncertain; the narrative here should be viewed as hypotheses rather than absolute fact.
The Western Monarch Population as a whole
The long-term decline from the 1980s and 1990s has been described and analyzed elsewhere (Crone et al. 2019, Crone and Schultz 2021, Espeset et al. 2016, James and Kappen 2021, Pelton et al. 2019, Schultz et al. 2017). The loss of breeding habitat in the Central Valley, changes in pesticide composition, weather fluctuations, and losses of overwintering sites are among the important causes. From 1999 to 2016, the California population fluctuated between ~60,000 and ~500,000, with a geometric mean size of 200,000 (Table 1). Notable lows included 86,000 in 2007, and 58,000 in 2009, coinciding with relative drought conditions across the West. But the population weathered the 2012-2015 drought, and recovered to ~300,000 in 2015 and 2016, and declined to 190,000 in 2017 (a very wet year). There are no simple relationships between annual precipitation in California and monarch numbers – causes are spread across the whole breeding range and season.
In 2018, the population declined sharply to ~30,000 butterflies, a record decline to date.
A leading hypothesis for this decline was a record warm February 2018 with coastal high temperatures greater than 70ºF, which stimulated monarchs to break diapause and leave the overwintering sites. The record warmth was followed by the return of winter with a vengeance in March (extended rains, some freezing nights, snow down to <1000 ft). Such winter weather immobilizes and can directly kill adult monarchs, especially away from the mild coastal zone, and cold also delays the emergence of milkweeds. The phenological gap between monarch emigration and milkweed emergence has been identified as a key bottleneck, and the temperature signal at the coast does not perfectly correlate with the temperature signal inland.
Much of the spring 2018 generation was lost, and the subsequent generations were not able to make it up the rest of the season. No monarchs made it to Washington State in 2018. Only 30,000 returned to California that fall.
In 2019, the overwintering population declined by ~30% to 22,000, a relative change well within the historical range of variability. But again, no monarchs reached the Pacific Northwest for breeding that year.
PGCC 9-7-2022
5 The 2020 season was a disaster – nearly everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
February 2020 was warm and followed by a cool rainy March (but not as severe as 2018). August and September 2020 brought on record heat- monarch larvae cooked to death in the Santa Barbara area (115ºF or higher, and hotter closer to the ground with little shade). The heat extended across nearly all the breeding range in California. An example of the record heat is the average temperature for Monterey County in August and September (Figure 2). Four million+ acres of fires directly took out some of the breeding habitat in the South Coast Ranges that produce many monarchs that migrate to Pacific Grove (Yang et al. 2016). The weeks of smoke, which is harmful to insects, came just as the monarchs were initiating the migration. Then there was a hard freeze in some inland areas, for example 22ºF in Paso Robles in mid-November (Dan Meade pers. comm.). The monarchs had not yet flown to the coast because of warm temperatures in October. The extreme fluctuations in temperature and rainfall have been termed “weather whiplash,” and are a feature of the rapidly changing climate.
The mild fall and early winter weather also allowed breeding to continue - reproductive diapause is not completely hardwired in by photoperiod. Monarchs have been breeding year-round in SoCal for more than a decade, and in 2020 winter breeding was observed in the Bay Area and other mild coastal climates (Crone and Schultz 2021, James and Kappen 2021). Even the native milkweeds, especially showy milkweed, did not senesce and the widespread availability of tropical milkweed means that hostplant resources are available in urban areas throughout the winter. The presence of breeding resident monarchs in coastal areas could have intercepted migratory butterflies and shortcircuited diapause.
In addition, the widespread use of mobile and persistent neonicotinoid pesticides has produced toxic host plants and nectar in the Central Valley, even in non-agricultural settings such as wildlife refuges (Fordyce et al. 2020). Much of the migration beyond the Coast Ranges needs to cross the Central Valley (and other heavily agricultural areas like the Salinas Valley) twice. These areas potentially act as population sinks.
In summary, the collapse of the migratory western monarch population in 2020 was likely driven by weather whiplash and record heat waves (both symptoms of climate change), exacerbated by continuing toxification of breeding habitat in agricultural regions. However, any assertions and conclusions are conditional on deeper analyses and consideration of the entire western monarch migration.
Recovery in 2021
Monarch observers were truly despondent after the 2020-2021 overwintering season with only 2,000 butterflies at the overwintering sites. But in 2021, the monarchs exhibited a remarkable recovery to ~250,000 overwintering butterflies, observed in the November-December 2021. How could this 100-fold increase happen? PGCC 9-7-2022
6 First, the awesome reproductive potential of monarch butterflies (each female produces ~400 eggs) can be expressed if conditions on the breeding grounds are good. Four-fold increases per generation are well within the range observed in monarch populations – over 4 generations such increases multiply out to 256-fold increase (4x4x4x4x4 = 256).
As opposed to 2020, nearly everything went right in 2021, at least in the southern portion of the monarch range. Spring weather following the emigration from the overwintering sites was mild. No megafires occurred in the South Coast Ranges, which produce many of the overwintering butterflies and provide for short migrations that avoid the toxic Central Valley. Resprouting milkweeds in the 2020 fire scars may have provided high quality larval food. The record heatwaves of 2020 did not recur. And a near record Southwest Monsoon season (July-September) provided excellent breeding conditions in Arizona with lush milkweed growth all summer long (Southwest Monarch Project, pers. comm.). Most late summer Arizona monarchs migrate to Southern and Central California- sites in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties had more monarchs in 2021 than since the early 2000s, and numerous sites on the Central Coast, including Pacific Grove, were occupied by numbers not seen for many years.
There was not a spectacular recovery north of Pacific Grove. The Santa Cruz sites showed moderately increased numbers from 2020, but not to the degree further south.
East Bay and Marin sites supported only a few hundred monarchs in 2021. Several megafires occurred in the northern breeding ranges, including the record Dixie Fire (>1,000,000 acres), Caldor Fire, and a series of fires in NW California. Smoke lingered in Northern California through the September-October migration season.
While we will never know for sure the exact contributions of these factors in the decline and recovery, the western monarch population has given us a second chance and it is incumbent on all of us to improve the breeding and overwintering habitats.
Pacific Grove in California Context
The numbers of monarchs at Pacific Grove primarily reflect the ups and downs of the overall California population (r2 = 0.82), with some variations among years (Table 1).
MGS has served as one of the major overwintering sites in California, accounting for an average of 7% (range 1% to 14%) of the Thanksgiving Counts since 1999. Its rank among all CA sites ranged from 1
st (2006) to 17th (2009), and MGS is almost always in the top 10 sites. For Monterey County (from 2001 on), MGS accounted for an average of 37% (range 17% to 58%) of the county population.
Seasonal Monarch Behavior
In general, monarchs seek wind-sheltered but sunny sites within forest groves along the coast. They “crowdsource the microclimate” - taking flight when conditions are too warm or too cool, too sunny, or too shady, and especially too windy. They tend to land where other monarchs are clustered, because the best indicator of good conditions for monarchs is the presence of other butterflies. The butterfly clusters move around PGCC 9-7-2022
7 according to the weather and time of year; lack of wind shelter is often the proximal cause of shifts. They often cluster just outside MGS to the south; and they use a mixture of tree species (eucalyptus, pine, and cypress) that varies from week to week and year to year.
The seasonal course of monarch numbers at MGS for 2013-2022 is shown in Figure 3.
Monarchs arrive in October, and typically reach peak numbers in late-November – December. Butterflies move around MGS, often associated with wind events – they often start the season along the sunny southern boundary and move into the interior following southerly storm winds. Emigration and mortality (Monarch Photo 4) reduce numbers for the remainder of the season, with a final exodus by mid-February into early-March. The details of recent seasons (2013-2019) are described in previous reports.
In 2022 (thick black line in Figure 3), monarchs arrived in October and numbers reached 13,700 by early November. After a plateau through mid-December, numbers dropped to 9,500 by January 7 and ~8,000 by January 22 - February 3. The mass emigration occurred in the weeks after Feb 3, and the last significant numbers were observed on March 10.
Most monarch overwintering sites exhibit a decrease in numbers following a peak in November (Table 2). The decrease from December to January followed a series of intense storms in the second half of December, with high winds (Figure 4). Over the period 2017-2021, the decrease in numbers from November (Thanksgiving Counts) to January (New Year’s Count) has been similar or less than the decreases observed at other sites in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. This observation indicates that monarchs find the habitat suitable for the entire season. The only time that MGS has been totally abandoned mid-season was in December 1995, when a record windstorm swept through coastal California with hurricane force winds.
Monarchs clustered on a variety of tree species and shift through the season (Figure 3b).
In 2021-22, monarchs started on eucalyptus, primarily along the southern edge. By late October, after storms and high winds, they moved to nearly 100%, Monterey pines (Cover photo, Monarch Photos 5 and 6) in the interior and remained there through January. In February, as weather warmed, they broke diapause and started mating (all the butterflies observed on February 12 were flying). They spread out again, and clustered on a mix of pines, cypress, and eucalyptus.
The preference for pines for most of the season is the result of the wind-sheltered interior being dominated by pines, not an intrinsic preference for that species. In previous years, monarchs have used eucalyptus much more frequently during the bulk of the season.
PGCC 9-7-2022
8 Weather 2021-2022
A weather station was installed on the southern fence within the historical cluster area in that zone. Weather data were recorded every 5 minutes. This microsite is often occupied early in the overwintering season, or during long periods of calm weather in the middle of the season. 2021-2022 provided the first opportunity to use the weather station data in conjunction with monarch movements.
Temperatures
Temperatures were typically mild at MGS. A notable heat wave (80°F) occurred in midOctober, and 75°F days occurred in late November and early December. December was generally cool (maximum temperatures of 50-60°F). During the stormy periods in late December, diurnal ranges were low. January had many days above 60°. Mid-February saw another warm period (70+°), which likely contributed to the final emigration from overwintering.
Minimum temperatures never were less than 41°, so there was no freeze danger in 2021-2022.
Wind
Wind drives short-term monarch movements within overwintering sites more than any other weather factor. The PGMS station is in a relatively well-sheltered spot. Average 5- minute winds (Figure 4A, second graph) only exceeded 5 mph for short periods in October and December. Gusts would exceed 5 mph much more often (third graph) and maximum daily gusts (fourth graph) reached 10 mph during the stormy periods in October and December. These windspeeds often drive monarchs from local microsites (Leong 1991).
Monterey Airport (KMRY) winds were substantially higher, as expected for an exposed site with anemometer at 10 m height (Figure 4B). The periods of high winds are the same as at PGMS. KMRY serves as an indicator of high regional wind events that can be tied to historical monarch movements within MGS.
The high winds in October drove the monarchs off the eucalyptus on south boundary, into the pines in the interior of the grove. The December storms and winds were the most notable stress on the monarchs in 2021-2022, and nearly all the monarchs remained on the pines in the interior. Mild conditions returned in January and February.
Wind direction at the weather station were predominantly between S and W, especially higher winds, and gusts (Figure 4C). This observation is not surprising given the location of the station, with relatively open southern exposure and more sheltered northern exposure.
PGCC 9-7-2022
9 Nectar
Monarchs will visit many species of flowers for nectar. Early season nectar helps keep monarchs at MGS, where they can attract other monarchs arriving from the breeding grounds. Nectar provides energy for flight, and the high availability at many California overwintering sites allows monarchs to conserve fat reserves and maintain body mass.
The major species used at MGS are tree daisy (Monarch Photo 1), bottlebrush (2), and English Ivy (3). Yellow butterfly bush (Buddleia) is also frequently used, but the bushes are overgrown and need some cutting back to freshen flower production and force flowering during the critical October-November period. Blue gum eucalyptus come into flower in January and provide copious nectar for the latter part of the season. The flowering red gum (E. filicifolia) sometimes blooms in the fall and is visited frequently during warm weather. Monarchs will avoid shade when air temperatures are cool, so the sunny areas near the nectar beds are crucial and should be used to the fullest.
Current state of Monarch Grove Sanctuary
Monarch Grove Sanctuary continues to provide high quality overwintering habitat. Large numbers of monarchs persisted through a very stormy period in December, indicating that there is sufficient wind shelter and dappled light in the interior. Most hazard trees and branches have been removed over time, but two large dead trees remain. The new plantings are established and will fill in some wind gaps, as well as provide cluster sites in favorable microsites.
Habitat photos, with documentation of location and photo orientation, of various parts of MGS are presented below with brief descriptions.
Management Actions in 2020 and 2021
Many of the minor actions recommended for 2020 were carried out. Mainly, some small dead trees were removed.
The major action in fall 2020 was plantings of boxed Monterey cypress that had been brought into MGS in 2019. Several cypress trees were planted in the open area south of the main entrance and kiosk, where 1 or 2 trees were recommended as cluster trees.
More cypresses were planted south of the main trail. Cypresses were also planted to the east of the nectar beds. Some bottlebrush and eucalyptus trees were also planted (Photos 1-4). Some toyon and ceanothus were planted and caged.
The irrigation scheduling has worked, as there has been a tendency to overwater in past years.
The recommendation that new low-growing native nectar plants be established along the trail through the nectar beds has not been implemented. Suggested management of the existing nectar plants by selective pruning was not observed by June 2022.
PGCC 9-7-2022
10 The new tree plantings have not been mapped as of 2022, pending a new mapping effort for all trees, so a complete inventory is not available. A new map of MGS is a central element of a new management plan, as discussed below. 2022 Recommendations
The specific 2022 recommendation include:
1. A hiatus on major plantings until a full inventory and structural assessment is completed as part of a new management plan (see below). There are plenty of new trees in the ground for now.
2. Boxed trees (Habitat Photo 1) can be moved around as desired. However, trees should not be put into the ground until the new assessment is completed, and planting sites selected.
3. The only exception is that one or two potted trees in the gap on the Hotel property can be planted (Habitat Photo 2). Avoiding overplanting is essential for individual tree health and rapid growth.
4. Remove two large standing dead trees, one toward the NW corner, and one just east of the nectar beds (Habitat Photos 9 and 10). These trees pose large hazards primarily to other trees.
5. Thinning the cypress stand toward the NW corner (Habitat Photo 7) with removal of two trees to be selected in the field, to allow for more room for the remaining trees while maintaining wind shelter.
6. Initiate thinning the weakest crowded eucalyptus in the SE corner to allow for development of healthier trees (Habitat Photo 4). Some of these trees are nearly dead. Plan on removing a few trees each year until a suitable density (10’ spacing) is achieved. The remaining trees should respond strongly to increased space and fill in the canopy rapidly.
7. The yellow Buddleia bushes be pruned to refresh growth and force flowering in the fall. Consultations with a master gardener or other horticultural expert is recommended.
8. Maintain and cage pine saplings in the interior (Habitat Photo 14).
9. The irrigation regime for new plantings be continued, but trees and shrubs should be weaned off irrigation after a few years once established.
History of Habitat Management
This section provides a brief history of management plans and actions over the past 25 years. More complete accounts can be found in the 2011 Assessment and Management plan and in subsequent annual reports.
In the 1990s and 2000’s, monarchs primarily clustered along the southern boundary, often on the neighbor’s pine tree. They would move into the Sanctuary proper to escape southerly storm winds, but returned to the southern boundary when winds swung around to the NW. Based on the 1998 assessment and management plan (Weiss 1998), a shelterbelt of blue gum eucalyptus was planted in 1999 to protect the site against NW winds.
PGCC 9-7-2022
11 Following the planting of the shelterbelt, little was done in the grove. Attempts to plant a second row of eucalyptus to reinforce the southern boundary, as recommended in the 1998 plan, failed because trees were pulled up. The many dead and dying pines (from old age and pitch canker) were not removed, despite a recommendation in the same report. In 2005, a dead branch fell and killed a woman, and the grove was closed to the public for the remainder of the season. Following the overwintering season, the dead trees were taken down, and many wildlife snags were retained. Several more hazard trees were removed in 2007-2008 following additional consultations.
In fall 2009, several large branches on the southern boundary were cut, without consultation, because a branch had fallen into the neighbor’s yard, and other branches posed hazards to the neighbors. These branches included favored monarch cluster sites.
This action coincided with the (then) record low point of the California population, and only 900 monarchs overwintered in Pacific Grove. The situation stimulated the development of a new management plan, completed in 2011.
In fall 2011, potted trees were brought into the grove and placed in the SE corner near where the branches had been cut, to create some temporary wind shelter. Based on the new management plan, in 2012 several of these trees were planted in an additional row of eucalyptus just north of the southern boundary trees, at 10-15 ft spacing.
By 2012, the 1999 shelterbelt trees had grown tall enough (50-60’) to provide wind shelter in conjunction with nearby pines and cypress, and monarchs moved into the interior of the grove and remained there for the remainder of the season, clustering on pines and cypress trees that receive more insolation than surrounding branches (see below for a discussion of shading).
In spring 2013, potted trees that had been brought into the grove as a temporary wind shelter were planted in the ground, creating a dense stand of small trees in the southeast corner of the grove. It was a period of conflicts over grove management.
In recent years, most hazard trees have been removed, and management actions have been relatively minor.
A New Site Management Plan
The 2011 Assessment and Management plan is now 11 years old. Conditions have changed enough that development of an updated plan is necessary. The annual funding that covers this annual report is not sufficient to develop a comprehensive plan using the latest assessment tools, as well as addressing the institutional issues that have arisen over the nearly three decades since Monarch Grove Sanctuary was established.
PGCC 9-7-2022
12 Funding is likely available via the Monterey County Resource Conservation District (RCD), as part of national and statewide initiatives to recover the western monarch population. Discussions among the City, the RCD, and monarch scientists are ongoing, and once RCD funding is secured the process can start.
Some key elements of a new assessment and management plan, first are suggested in the 2021 review, include:
Produce a New Base Map of Monarch Grove Sanctuary
Managing MGS is an exercise in landscape architecture, with the goal of maintaining wind shelter from all directions, but allowing sufficient light in the interior so that monarchs can choose a mix of sunny, dappled, and shaded spots within the forest. Also, management of hazard trees and tracking of new plantings and subsequent growth are desirable so that a record of actions is maintained, and precise plans for each year can be laid out and executed as planned.
The foundation of a long-term management plan is an accurate map of the Sanctuary, including property boundaries, tree locations, tree species, tree diameter at breast height (DBH), tree height, and tree health. In addition, new plantings, understory plants, trails, and other features should be added on an annual basis.
In 2010, a working map of MGS was produced for the 2011 Assessment and Management Plan (Figures 5 and 6). The 2011 map used triangulation with tapes to lay down a 10 m grid, and trees were mapped out within those grids to within 1-2 meters.
Hemispherical photographs were taken at each 10 x 10m point. Attempts to tie the grid to surveyed property lines were stymied by poor GPS accuracy within the forest, and distortions of horizontal distances by topography. Therefore, the working map is not georeferenced and has its own local coordinate system. This map has served adequately since 2011 for management, but is now out of date because of tree mortality and new plantings.
Rather than update the current map, it is recommended that a new map be produced with surveying equipment such as a Total Station, and be tied into the parcel map, digital elevation model (DEM), and other base data for Pacific Grove. GPS is not accurate enough within the denser parts of the grove.
Remapping all the trees is an opportunity to reassess their health, requiring the city arborist to be involved. Although the soaking rains of October and December 2021 alleviated some drought stress, the dry winter and spring of 2022 once again herald drought stress. Special note should be made of drought symptoms where visible.
Repeat hemispherical photography
Nearly exact relocation of photopoints is possible through triangulation from the SE fence corner, even without a formally surveyed base map. Some photographs were PGCC 9-7-2022
13 reshot in 2018 but never fully analyzed. Repeat photos should be taken so that the change in conditions from 2011 and 2018 can be quantified.
Methods for interpolating wind and light have improved since the 1998 and 2011 reports, and can be redone in such a manner as to directly compare sites through time and understand the effects of canopy changes through time.
LiDAR
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is a state-of-the-art method for quantifying the 3- dimensional structure of vegetation at fine scales. A laser scanner is used from either above (airborne) or below (ground-based). The reflections are timed to calculate distance, and a “point cloud” of reflections is produced. There are software packages, including ARCGIS Pro, that can analyze and display the point cloud and describe vertical structures in detail.
Projects at other monarch sites (in Sonoma County) has developed some methods for quantifying wind and solar radiation at the outer canopy surface, using ARCGIS Pro and Wind Ninja software.
LiDAR data can be collected from airplanes, drones, or from ground-based scanners. A LiDAR flight over Pacific Grove was completed in 2018, with resolution of 5.68 pts/square meter and is available at:
https://portal.opentopography.org/usgsDataset?dsid=CA_FEMA_Z4_B1_2018 Example images and analyses from this LiDAR product are presented and discussed in the supplemental report “Examples of LiDAR for Assessment of Monarch Butterfly Habitat in Pacific Grove.” The point density (5.68 pts/square meter) is lower than that used in Sonoma County (9-12 points/square meter) but is sufficient to capture many canopy features. But it is not adequate to fully map the middlestory and understory.
One advantage is that it is possible to map the surrounding urban forest and assess wind shelter from a broader area.
It is possible to contract for drone LiDAR that can produce a map of several acres at high point densities (>100 points/square meter). Laguna Drones in Los Gatos, or other vendors, can provide services for $5-10,000 depending on the amount of processing. A drone flight would produce the best up to date map and capture nearly full understory structure.
Many innovative LiDAR analyses are being developed at Ellwood Mesa in Goleta, where a drone flight acquired 200 pts/m2. It is now feasible to simulate hemispherical photographs ay any height above the ground, hence quantifying light and wind exposure exactly where the monarchs choose cluster sites PGCC 9-7-2022
14 Ground-based LiDAR is feasible, but requires accurate ground locations, and would be difficult to deploy on private property outside MGS. No vendors are known at this time.
Airborne LiDAR could also cover George Washington Park (GWP) and provide base data for a management plan there. GWP images are included in the LiDAR document Wind mapping
Kingston Leong (1990, 1991) has developed a method for mapping wind on a grid using hand-held wind meters. The meters are held for a short period (2 minutes or more) and the mean, max, and min windspeed recorded. These measurements are done under a variety of wind directions, and can be correlated with monarch occupancy at fine scales.
Monarchs tend to leave sites when ground-level winds exceed ~5 mph (2 m/s). Leong used this method in his 1990’s report on MGS.
This wind mapping procedure could be executed by volunteers or students under supervision. The wind attenuation from outside conditions can be correlated with Wind Site Factors (WSF) from hemispherical photography, which would allow for better inference of wind exposure. A well calibrated wind attenuation model would be of great use across all monarch sites. LiDAR data could also be correlated with measured wind.
A fluid dynamic wind modeling program called Eddy3D has been used in Santa Barbara County to model wind at fine scales within monarch sites and assess management options. The LiDAR point cloud provides the 3-D structure as model input.
Weather Stations
The initial trial runs with the Ambient Weather station proved to be successful. The full season of data presented here is informative on monarch response to weather, especially wind. Several questions need to be answered for future deployment:
1. Is the station in the optimal location for understanding conditions in the grove? The current site on the south fence within the historical cluster zone is a good initial choice. It captures the wind exposure from the south an especially important aspect of the grove and surrounding area. It was not possible to correlate the weather with monarch movements in 2020-21, but in 2021-22 the high winds in October along the southern boundary that drove the monarchs into the interior were captured.
2. Can the results be extrapolated to the rest of the grove? Temperature varies with height, minimum temperatures are coolest at the ground, and increase with height – some vertical movements of monarchs are associated with avoiding cold temperatures low in the canopy. There are simple models of temperature with height, which could be calibrated with small temperature sensors. Absolute humidity is more consistent across a forest grove, but relative humidity is a function of air temperature. Wind and insolation vary strongly from point to point according to fine scale canopy structure, which is captured with PGCC 9-7-2022
15 hemispherical photography and calibrated via the wind mapping protocol described above.
3. Would additional stations be useful? More sites in complex environments are generally better. But costs escalate rapidly when full stations are considered.
Temperature can be mapped using small data loggers (iButton Thermochrons or HOBOs) placed in a network to capture important gradients. A network of recording anemometers would be useful, as an adjunct to the wind mapping.
Exactly where one or more additional stations would be placed for maximal efficiency is a question that requires some considerable thought. A weather station in an open field at the Adult School could be a useful “outside the grove” baseline. A substantial amount of micrometeorological equipment – temperature, humidity, light, and wind sensors - is available from Francis Villablanca (Cal Poly SLO) and USFWS and has been offered to California monarch researchers and managers.
4. Is there a good “base station” that captures the general weather in the open for long timer periods? There are many weather stations in Pacific Grove and surrounding areas. But the wind at any station in the urban matrix will be very site-specific with obstructions like trees and buildings – official wind measurements are taken on 10 m tall towers in open areas to avoid ground effects. The Monterey Airport has the longest record, but the wind there is influenced by the local topography, so wind direction is modified, but wind speed is still a useful parameter (see previous reports) that identifies large scale synoptic (storm front) events. Hopkins Marine Station has a weather station right at the water’s edge, which would be good for regional wind, but temperatures will be much more buffered than at MGS. A thorough investigation of available weather stations would be a critical step.
5. Can weather in MGS be correlated with regional conditions? Yes, methods exist to create a model that transfers conditions from a base station to a local station.
The key is to have a calibration period (one year or more) where a wide variety of conditions are experienced.
A combination of short-term spatially distributed measurements and longer-term base station(s) is an optimal way to understand the microclimate withing MGS. Quantitatively correlating measurable forest structures to microclimate is key to assessing management options.
Assessing New Plantings
The numerous newly planted cypress and eucalyptus will eventually greatly change the canopy structure and microclimate in the grove. While providing additional wind shelter is an important goal, it is important to remember that it is possible to have too dense a canopy that does not let in enough light for monarchs. This careful balance must be maintained (see below).
PGCC 9-7-2022
16 It is standard practice to overplant trees to account for mortality, and eventually thin them to a density that encourages individual tree health (Habitat Photo 7). The overplanted eucalyptus in the SE corner (Habitat Photo 4) are an example The spreading structure of Monterey cypress can deeply shade a site for decades, until the lower branches drop and open the understory.
At this point, it is important to evaluate the eventual growth of these new trees and plan accordingly so that they do provide additional wind shelter, but are not overcrowded and competing with one another, and do not provide excessive shade in key parts of the grove.
Tree health
As mentioned above, the health of each tree and prospects should be documented. In 2021-2022, the continuing drought conditions make it imperative that drought stress symptoms be carefully noted.
In particular, the redwoods along the western boundary have not been performing well, especially during droughts. The weakest of these trees should be removed in phases and replaced with cypress or pines to maintain wind shelter. Some of the older tall pines are in poor shape, and may pose hazards to people, structures, and other trees. Prompt attention to hazard trees with “targets” should they fall is an essential annual activity.
Evaluation of Shade Limitations
While wind shelter is paramount, monarchs often seek sunny or dappled light habitats for clustering. The consistent use of the sunny southern boundary trees and adjacent trees to the south reflect this preference. But the high southerly wind exposure in those sites means that monarchs move north into the more protected interior of the grove.
Such a move occurred in October 2022 following an intense early season storm, and this behavior has been noted in many years.
But, in the wind-sheltered interior of the grove, shade may be limiting use by monarchs.
The large eucalyptus on the southern boundary cast shade deep into the grove, and additional pines and cypress north of the path add to the shading. Maintaining some open habitat in this area is essential (Habitat Photos 17 and 18).
The 2011 Assessment and Management Plan has insolation maps that are copied here (Figure 7). These maps show that there are some higher insolation sites in the interior – note the small halos within the deep blue areas near the center of the grove - which are where monarchs tend to cluster on pines (see Monarch Photos 5 and 6) when they move into the interior. Repeat photography of these sites would establish if the canopy has grown and filled enough to cast more shade.
Shade can also limit access to nectar. The nectar beds are just west and north of the outline of the former building (removed in 2011). The southern portions of the nectar PGCC 9-7-2022
17 beds are deeply shaded for much of the winter, and are inaccessible except when high air temperatures allow monarch flight in shady habitat. The northern section of the nectar bed area is the best area for season-long nectar access. In the longer term, the growth of trees to the south and west of the nectar beds could increase shade limitations. Again, reshooting hemispherical photographs could quantify any differences in shade patterns.
A thorough evaluation of shade limitations, and potential ameliorations through selective pruning or even removal of trees to decrease deep shade should be conducted. Of course, maintaining wind shelter is essential. Modification of hemispherical photographs can provide a first order estimate of effects on both sunlight and wind. If LiDAR is available, then a similar modification of the canopy can be simulated by deleting potions of the point cloud.
Any such modification of the canopy by opening will require rigorous documentation and a cautious approach, given the sensitivity of the site and the Pacific Grove community.
Long-term Management Considerations to be Incorporated Into the New Management Plan
Management of Monarch Grove Sanctuary is a long-term process. This section looks ahead to anticipated changes and issues over the next decades, so that current management recommendations can be put into context. Much of this section is reiterated from previous reports, with a few updates.
1) NW Windbreak: The 1999 blue gum plantings are now 60-80’ tall and provide critical NW wind shelter and allow monarchs to remain in the interior of the grove following storms that drive them from the wind-exposed southern boundary. These eucalyptus trees are the anchor of a multi-species windbreak and are absolutely necessary to maintain long-term windbreak functions because pines may succumb to pitch canker and cypress will lose lower branches. The mid-story of pines and cypress currently contributes to windbreak function, as the foliage on the blue gums is concentrated in the upper canopy. 2) Eucalyptus threat?: The ground along narrow zone below the NW windbreak eucalyptus is being affected by leaf and litter fall, but less than 0.1 acres are affected. The comments on page 2 in the 2020 arborist report (“potential catastrophic effects”) greatly exaggerate the threat to native forest, especially since the eucalyptus will not be allowed to spread, and the litter deposits can be occasionally raked up. The remainder of the interior and northern reaches is available for native forest management.
3) Southern Boundary: The 2011 blue gum plantings inside the southern boundary, authorized by the City, have grown to heights of 25-30’ and are beginning to provide additional wind shelter. Monarchs clustered on some of these trees in November and December 2019, with a peak of 53 (~15% of the population) on PGCC 9-7-2022
18 December 5 (see 2020 report). As these trees continue to grow, eventually monarchs can cluster in a wind sheltered dappled light environment as envisioned in the 2011 Assessment and Management plan. These trees will provide redundancy for the large southern windbreak trees, and will eventually replace them decades from now. These trees are in a difficult environment for rapid growth, with shade and root competition from the large southern boundary trees, so they will continue to grow relatively slowly, but will be healthy. Planting some additional trees, Callistemon viminalis and Eucalyptus ficifolia as recommended by the arborist report in key locations would fill gaps, diversify the windbreak, and provide a multi-age structure. 4) SE Corner: The densely planted blue gums (2013) in the SE corner are showing signs of overcrowding (some were planted 3’ apart), with poor growth relative to more widely spaced trees. There has been a consistent recommendation over the years to thin these trees back to a more appropriate density, but it has never been implemented. The Weisfuss 2020 arborist report also recommends thinning these trees. Thinning will increase the health of the remaining trees, and their canopies will expand to fill in the available space. Several of them are now dead, and should be removed. These trees will continue to grow poorly in crowded conditions and eventually self-thin, and they are competing with several of the authorized plantings from 2011.
5) Wind gaps: Farther west on the southern boundary, there are several larger gaps that should be filled. The arborist report recommends Callistemon viminalis and Eucalyptus ficifolia to diversify the windbreak and provide mid-story and low windbreaks. Cypresses are not recommended along the southern boundary because of sprawling growth form. Trees were planted in this gap in 2020. 6) Pines: Pines continue to succumb to pitch canker, and despite some wet years in 2017 and 2019, drought effects are still being expressed in some trees. The dry year in 2020 and very dry year in 2021 produced more drought stress. The soaking rains of October and December 2021 provided some relief with deep soil recharge, but the dry winter and spring 2022 means that trees will remain drought stressed. Continued plantings to maintain a substantial pine component in the grove is important, but pines still cannot be counted upon to provide longterm overstory. Pine plantings need to be protected from browsing and getting knocked over by deer. Removal of pines heavily infested with pitch canker can slow, but not stop the spread of this disease.
7) Previous cypress plantings: Many of the cypress planted over the last two decades are in their period of rapid growth and will provide significant wind shelter in coming years and decades. The cypress along with blue gums will provide the backbone of the grove, given the uncertainties of pine survival in the long run. Some densely planted cypress stands have been thinned in recent years to encourage more rapid growth of remaining trees, and continued selective thinning is recommended in several spots.
8) New Plantings 2020 More than 20 potted Monterey cypress were brought into the Sanctuary as temporary windbreaks in 2019. These trees have been planted PGCC 9-7-2022
19 in several parts of the grove (Habitat Photos 3 and 12). The locations of these trees should be recorded on the new base map. The cypresses are overplanted as discussed above, and eventually should be thinned once it is apparent which trees are strongest. If they are not appropriately thinned, the individual trees will be stressed and grow poorly. The spreading canopy of Monterey cypress can become too dense for monarchs, especially when tree crowns interlock. Special care should be taken to balance wind shelter and shade. 9) Oaks: Understory live oaks are scattered among the pines and cypress, and more plantings could fill in understory in select parts of the grove and provide good native habitat. Oaks can eventually provide low and mid-story windbreaks.
Planting of acorns, with protection by tree tubes is an efficient method for oak plantings that allow roots to penetrate deep on their own. Planting plugs may appear more efficient, but the constricted roots of oak plugs often lead to longterm failure. 10) Native forest management: Overall, there are many sections of the Sanctuary where management for native forest is appropriate, with an emphasis on overstory pines. The northern reaches, beyond the NW windbreak is a prime example. The old pines have died or fallen, leaving wildlife snags and an open canopy. In addition to oaks, native shrubs (toyon and ceanothus are present, but a large palette of native shrubs is available) can contribute to understory structure. Non-native cover like the calla lilies can be removed in phases, and native forest floor forbs could be introduced in parts of the Sanctuary. All native plantings need to be protected from deer browsing. Some control of the dense annual grass cover is needed while understory is establishing, and annual grasses will always be a component of the forest floor. Some mowing of annual grasses is desirable for fire safety.
11) Irrigation: Maintaining the irrigation system for tree establishment and for watering during droughts, as well as developing a rigorous irrigation management plan overseen by City staff and implemented by volunteers, is critical. But irrigation should only be provided for the first year or two (unless severe drought occurs). The irrigation management has greatly improved in recent years, according to volunteers Habitat (Habitat Photos 19 and 20). 12) Nectar: Attractive fall blooming nectar plants help to retain arriving butterflies early in October and November. Nectar plants in sunny areas can be used far more frequently than those in the shade and sunny areas are at a premium.
Yellow Buddleia and tree daisy are the most attractive species in the beds, and replacement of some of the other species in the beds (i.e., the mallow) should be considered. The sunny edges along the trail are perfect for planting native nectar species for fall nectar. Away from the nectar beds, butterflies nectar on the flowering red gum when it occasionally blooms in the fall. Use of bottlebrush was noted every year. Later in the season, early blooming Prunus has provided winter-spring nectar in addition to the blooming blue gums. As mentioned above, a thorough evaluation of present and future shade limitations is desirable.
PGCC 9-7-2022
20 13) The neighbors: While there are some policies and ordinances with respect to the activities within a buffer zone around the Sanctuary, the truth is that the City has little control over tree removal and maintenance, and even may have obligations to protect the neighbors. Activities in recent years at the Hotel – tree trimming and removal - have had impacts on MGS, and the same can be said about the southern neighbors at a lesser scale. A clear policy and lines of communications about tree work will avoid some of the worst outcomes, but unless there is a strict ordinance that mandates consultations such actions will continue to have impacts. On a positive side, cooperation with the neighbors could enhance MGS.
An Adaptive Management Framework
In the 2011 Assessment and Management Plan, there is a section that discusses how to have an annual cycle in which decisions are considered and acted upon. This section is excerpted into the Appendix of this report. Adaptive management requires data, open minds, and a process. Some additional thoughts as of 2021 are warranted.
1. An official management plan is the key document and foundation of adaptive management. Having everything possible written and ordered in a living document creates a common platform for decision making. The elements of a management plan are discussed above
2. A regular annual scheduled cycle of reporting, comments, and consultations is desirable. Starting in 2013, such a cycle was established and was a quantum leap from the ad hoc decision-making process prior to that. In some years, the presentation to BNRC and the public tour were later than optimal. A more formal schedule would keep the timing on track and allow for unhurried actions prior to the October 1 restriction.
George Washington Park
George Washington Park (GWP) is ready for a more detailed site restoration and management plan, which should be part of the proposed new management plan.
Observations and recommendations to be incorporated (largely repeated from previous years) include:
1) This is a unique site for California monarchs; it is one of the few remaining Monterey pine/live oak habitats for monarchs.
2) GWP has been used intermittently by monarchs, a few individuals can be found there every year at some point, but major clusters were observed only in 2003, 2004, and 2006 (Table 1). In 2006, there were more than 10,000 monarchs at GWP and very few at Monarch Grove Sanctuary. Since then, there has been only one year (2011 with 61 observed) with monarchs at Thanksgiving, none were observed from 2012 to 2019. Individual monarchs have been observed here during other times of the overwintering season.
3) The historic cluster sites in GWP are losing sufficient wind shelter for monarchs, and additional senescence of mature trees threatens this important component PGCC 9-7-2022
21 of habitat suitability. In particular, the largest pine at the historical overwintering site died several years ago, but there are several mid-story pines that are in positions to replace this tree over coming decades. Losses of forest cover to the south and west through overstory tree mortality is reducing wind shelter. 4) Removal of dead standing trees is recommended where they have stationary targets, especially around the edge of GWP. Dead trees that may fall across trails in the interior should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trees can be left as safe wildlife snags where appropriate, but a more naturalistic topping should be considered.
5) Reduction of accumulated deadfall by CALFIRE in 2014, 2015, and 2016 removed large piles of downed tree debris. This is important preparation for eventual site restoration. Some branch and log piles have been retained and downed logs are used to redirect foot traffic to fewer trails. Selective removal of large debris piles is recommended, with some piles retained for wildlife habitat. 6) Natural pine recruits, most common in disturbed areas, should be protected. 7) Less frequent deep irrigation of pines is preferable to frequent shallow irrigation.
A water trailer can be provided by the City for such a purpose 8) Plantings of pine seedlings has proven successful and should continue (Habitat Photos 21 and 22). Eventual thinning is required of establishment rates are high. 9) Live oak plantings can provide the under- and middle-story necessary for wind shelter in a mature pine forest.
10) Similarly, ceanothus and toyon can provide understory structure. 11) Operations on the perimeter of the park are the priority, to maintain safety from falling dead trees on adjacent roads, and to create a fire buffer. 12) The full impact of the recent and ongoing drought will continue to be expressed.
Trees may take one or two years to die after major drought stress and high rainfall season like 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 may not allow for recovery once drought stress has weakened trees.
13) Establishment of a designated trail system and decommissioning of meandering paths impacting root systems of the trees is occurring. Ingrowth of poison oak is effectively shutting some social trails.
14) Now that there have been reductions in downed trees and debris, and the full impact of the drought on mature trees will become apparent, the long-term suitability of George Washington Park for monarchs should be assessed, using a combination of hemispherical photography, LiDAR and other suggested methods.
15) An assessment of pitch canker and tree health is especially important in GWP. 16) Once assessments are done, a long-term planting scheme (pines, oaks, and native understory shrubs) should be developed and implemented. The key elements of such a planting scheme should be to provide eventual replacements for canopy trees, create and maintain a mid-story of oaks and pines, and maintain wind shelter from all directions around defined canopy gaps.
PGCC 9-7-2022
22 Literature cited
Crone, E.E., Pelton, E.M., Brown, L.M., Thomas, C.C. and Schultz, C.B., 2019. Why are monarch butterflies declining in the West? Understanding the importance of multiple correlated drivers. Ecological Applications, 29(7), p.e01975.
Crone, E. and Schultz, C., 2021. Resilience or Catastrophe? A possible state change for monarch butterflies in the West. Ecology Letters, 24(8), pp.1533-1538.
Espeset, A.E., Harrison, J.G., Shapiro, A.M., Nice, C.C., Thorne, J.H., Waetjen, D.P., Fordyce, J.A. and Forister, M.L., 2016. Understanding a migratory species in a changing world: climatic effects and demographic declines in the western monarch revealed by four decades of intensive monitoring. Oecologia, 181(3), pp.819-830.
Fordyce, J.A., Baert, N. and Forister, M.L., 2020. Pesticide Contamination of Milkweeds Across the Agricultural, Urban, and Open Spaces of Low-Elevation Northern California.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, p.162.
James, D.G., 2019. A neonicotinoid insecticide at a rate found in nectar reduces longevity but not oogenesis in monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (L.).(Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae). Insects, 10(9), p.276.
James, D.G. and Kappen, L., 2021. Further insights on the migration biology of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from the Pacific Northwest.
Insects, 12(2), p.161.
Leong, K.L.H. 1990. Microenvironmental factors associated with the winter habitat of the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera:Danaidae) in central California. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 83:906-910
Leong, K.L.H. 1991. Use of multivariate analyses to characterize the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera:Danaidae) winter habitat. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 84:263-267.
Pelton, E.M., Schultz, C.B., Jepsen, S.J., Black, S.H. and Crone, E.E., 2019. Western monarch population plummets: status, probable causes, and recommended conservation actions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, p.258.
Schultz, C.B., Brown, L.M., Pelton, E. and Crone, E.E., 2017. Citizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western North America.
Biological Conservation, 214, pp.343-346.
Weisfuss, A. 2020. Monarch Grove Sanctuary. An Assessment with Recommendations.
Arborist report to the City of Pacific Grove.
PGCC 9-7-2022
23 Weiss, S.B. 1998. Habitat Suitability, Restoration, and Vegetation Management at Monarch Grove Sanctuary, Pacific Grove, California. Report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Weiss, S.B. 2011. Management Plan for Monarch Grove Sanctuary:
Site Assessment and Initial Recommendations. Report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Weiss, S.B. 2013-2020. Proposed management activities Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park. Annual memorandum/report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Yang, L.H., Ostrovsky, D., Rogers, M.C. and Welker, J.M., 2016. Intra‐population variation in the natal origins and wing morphology of overwintering western monarch butterflies Danaus plexippus. Ecography, 39(10), pp.998-1007.
PGCC 9-7-2022
24 Table 1. Monarch Butterfly Thanksgiving Counts Xerces Society Monarch Grove Sanctuary (MGS) George Washington Park (GWP), Monterey County, and California Totals. *MGS was the only site counted that year.
Year MGS GWP CA Total Monterey
Co.
MGS %
CA
MGS %
Monterey
MGS CA
Rank
1997 45,000 1,235,490 45,000 4% 100%* 10 (tie)
1998 35,000 564,349 41,000 6% 85% 5
1999 25,000 267,574 25,000 9% 100%* 3 (tie)
2000 20,000 0 390,057 20,000 5% 100%* 6 (tie)
2001 14,960 209,570 31,203 7% 48% 4
2002 4,700 99,353 11,593 5% 41% 5 (tie)
2003 22,802 2,750 254,378 68,979 9% 33% 2
2004 10,867 4,325 205,085 54,481 5% 20% 4 (tie)
2005 12,199 2 218,679 37,540 6% 32% 4
2006 28,746 11,795 221,058 59,957 13% 48% 1
2007 8,181 2 86,437 15,426 9% 53% 3
2008 17,866 0 131,889 31,063 14% 58% 2
2009 793 0 58,468 4,735 1% 17% 17
2010 4,968 0 143,204 8,634 3% 58% 4
2011 12,265 61 222,525 27,788 6% 44% 4
2012 10,790 0 144,812 29,048 7% 37% 4 (tie)
2013 13,420 1 211,275 35,772 6% 38% 3 (tie)
2014 18,128 0 234,731 55,879 8% 32% 3
2015 11,472 0 292,888 27,787 4% 41% 3 (tie)
2016 17,100 0 298,464 64,804 6% 26% 3
2017 7,350 0 192,629 35,657 4% 21% 8
2018 705 0 28,429 2,758 2.5% 26% 15
2019 642 0 21,944 2,792 2.9% 25% 8
2020 0 0 1,914 58 0 0 --
2021 13,608 0 247,237 26,502 5.5% 51% 5
PGCC 9-7-2022
25 Table 2. Comparisons of Thanksgiving (NOV) with New Year’s (JAN) counts at Monterey County and Santa Cruz County sites that had butterflies at Thanksgiving Counts.
SITE NAME NOV
2021
JAN
2022
Ratio
2021
NOV
2019
JAN
2020
Ratio
2020
NOV
2018
JAN
2019
Ratio
2019
Lighthouse Field,
Santa Cruz 410 637 155% 3402 2600 76% 1802 1933 107%
Natural Bridges
State Beach 2,100 1,700 66% 1997 25 1% 1120 765 68%
Private Property
near Big Sur 11,200 10,100 90% 1750 50 3% 819 29 4%
Butterfly Grove
Sanctuary 13,608 10,055 74% 642 316 49% 705 685 97%
Moran Lake, Moran
Lake 1,100 725 66% 400 30 8% 1373 346 25%
CH1 Private Site 1,193 2,623 220% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Seascape Golf
Course 700 32 5% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
PGCC 9-7-2022
26 Figure 1. Relationship between total California monarch numbers and MGS numbers, Xerces Thanksgiving Counts
Figure 2. Monthly Mean Temperature for Monterey County, August-November 2020. From Westmap (https://cefa.dri.edu/Westmap/Westmap_home.php) PGCC 9-7-2022
27 Figure 3a. Monarch numbers through seasons. Data from Pacific Grove Museum Figure 3b. Monarch Tree Preference
PGCC 9-7-2022
28 Figure 4a. Temperature and Wind Speed at PGMS Weather Station Figure 4b. Wind Speed at KMRY (Monterey Airport)
PGCC 9-7-2022
29 Figure 4C. Wind Speed and Direction PGMS October 2021-February 2022. The density of points is indicated by the color ramp (red and yellow = higher density).
Wind gusts were ~ 30% higher than 5-minute wind speeds, although intermittent gusts could be more than twice the 5-minbute wind speed.
PGCC 9-7-2022
30 Figure 5. Monarch Occupied Trees (Green Triangles) and cluster zones, Grid in meters
Interior
South
Jan 2016Site
Second Row
Driveway
Nectar Beds
West
PGCC 9-7-2022
31 Figure 6. Management Zones. Grid in Meters
PGCC 9-7-2022
32 Figure 7. Insolation maps from 2011 report. Note the small halos in the interior east of the outline of the old building footprint; which is the interior cluster zone. The high insolation areas NW of the old building are where nectar (primarily tree daisy and bottlebrush) is available the entire season
PGCC 9-7-2022
33 Monarch photos November 23, 2021
1. Monarchs nectaring on tree daisy 2. Monarchs nectaring on bottlebrush
3. Monarchs nectaring on English ivy 4. Monarch wings on forest floor, with abdomens eaten.
5. Monarch clusters in interior pine, from
hotel driveway
6. Dense clusters in interior pine, from
trail
PGCC 9-7-2022
34 Habitat Photos
Photo 1. Eastern boundary with boxed
eucalyptus trees. At their current size,
these trees provide marginally increased
wind shelter above that provided by the
houses to the east.
Photo 2. Potted trees placed in a gap on
the hotel property. Originally, these trees
were planted in the ground, but were dug
up after consultation with city staff.
Planting two trees at most in this gap
would be the best way to fill this gap with
a healthy trees
Photo 3. Two cypress planted in the open
area of the SE corner of MGS. These trees
may develop into cluster trees in a windsheltered area with dappled light Photo 4. SE corner. These eucalyptuses
were planted too dense in 2013 (3-5’
apart) and are growing poorly and in poor
shape. The well-spaced trees (10-15’
apart) that were officially authorized in
2012 are much healthier and taller.
PGCC 9-7-2022
35 Photo 5. Eucalyptus planted in 2012 at
appropriate spacing (10-15’) are now 25+
ft tall and are establishing a second row
north of the main eucalyptus row.
Monarchs have clustered on these trees
early in the season.
Photo 6. Second row of eucalyptus
planted in 2021, to fill in gaps in the
southern boundary.
Photo 7. Group of cypress panted in mid2000s, ready to be thinned by removing two trees to allow for more rapid growth
and health of remaining trees. Wind
shelter will not be compromised, and the
remaining trees will fill in.
Photo 8. The NW-side of the eucalyptus
windbreak planted in 1999. This mixed
species shelterbelt provided critical NW
wind protection for the interior of the
grove where monarchs clustered in 2021-
2022 (and other years).
PGCC 9-7-2022
36 Photo 9. Dead standing pine east of nectar
beds. This tree threatens numerous
important trees and should be removed
before it falls on its own.
Photo 10. Dead pine near NW corner.
Even though this tree is leaning away
from the trail, it threatens important
windbreak trees and should be removed.
An irregular-topped snag can be left
behind.
Photo 11. View from interior to east
showing the hotel, which acts as a
windbreak from this direction. The view
N is blocked by an array of pines,
eucalyptus, and cypress. The gap to the
SE is where potted trees were placed.
Photo 12. Newly planted cypress east of
nectar beds, part of a double row of trees
planted to seal up this edge and protect the
interior cluster zone.
PGCC 9-7-2022
37 Photo 13. View to SSW from trail, rapidly
growing cypress between trail and Grove
Acre Ave.
Photo 14. Pine saplings planted in
interior.
Photo 15. Nearly dead pine in interior.
This relatively small tree does not threaten
other trees and can be retained for now,
the lichen provides some wind shelter
function
Photo 16. Dense eucalyptus plantings
along southern fence. Thinning one or
two trees here would allow for better
growth of remaining trees. The trees right
up against the fence will eventually
impinge on the fence.
PGCC 9-7-2022
38 Photo 17. View into interior cluster zone
of pines. Maintaining some relatively open
habitat with dappled light in this area is
important for monarchs.
Photo 18. Cypress sapling near bend in
the trail, with 1999 eucalyptus shelterbelt
in background and relatively open interior
to east.
Photo 19. Irrigation Zones Photo 20. Irrigation documentation Photo 21. Pine plantings in George
Washington Park
Photo 22. Pine plantings in George
Washington Park
PGCC 9-7-2022
39 Appendix (From 2011 Assessment and Monitoring Plan)
Principles
The key principles for the adaptive management plan include resiliency, redundancy, dynamic ecosystems, proactive adaptive management, and decision making in the field.
Resiliency provides a range of conditions that buffer environmental variability. In the case of the Sanctuary, the key variables are wind, sunlight, and temperature. Ambient conditions outside the grove are filtered by the forest canopy, creating a complex fine-grained environment where microclimates change meter by meter through the site, and hour by hour through the season. As the varied combinations of wind shelter and light exposure change through the day and season, and monarch butterflies move about on fine-scales within grove, and broader scales among groves, as they attempt track their preferred environmental envelope, and avoid extremes. In particular, extreme windstorms can drive monarchs from sites.
Redundancy within the habitat means multiple lines of “defense” – two rows of trees, rather than one row, wind shelter from multiple directions, areas of full sunlight, dappled sunlight, and shade, multiple openings where appropriate, and other features.
The loss of branches, individual trees, groups of trees, or species of tree should not fully degrade habitat. Locally complex habitat may provide more opportunities within smaller areas.
Dynamic ecosystems – trees grow and die over years and decades, and even centuries, leading to incremental and even catastrophic changes in microclimate. On a smaller scale, branches naturally fall and may be removed for public safety. Decisions made today have repercussions for decades to come.
Proactive adaptive management means that changes are anticipated well in advance, and appropriate management carried out at a deliberate and measured pace. This requires a systematic adaptive management process among institutions and stakeholders to evaluate, plan, execute, assess, and re-evaluate, on an annual cycle in synchrony with the resource. Continued and refined monitoring of the distribution and abundance of monarchs over the season at the Sanctuary is an essential component of adaptive management.
Decision making and supervision in the field – All final decisions regarding tree management should be made in conjunction with a field visit, so that exact instructions can be communicated. Management activities – planting and trimming - should be monitored by qualified and interested individuals when possible.
Adaptive Management Plan
Resource management to protect and enhance Monarch Grove Sanctuary, or any monarch site, should be undertaken within the adaptive management model. Under this model, problems are assessed using existing information. Management regimes are designed and implemented in order to achieve stated objectives. Results are assessed through monitoring, and information gained is used to assess and adjust the management regime.
Through each iteration of the cycle, information is gained that further refines the optimal management regime (Figure 4).
PGCC 9-7-2022
40 The adaptive management process.
Stated Objectives
1) Implement forest and tree management to create a mosaic of microclimates that allow monarchs to locally adjust their distribution in response to variable weather, including extreme wind storms.
2) Maintain public safety by timely treatments of hazard trees and branches without compromising monarch habitat.
3) Establish and maintain diverse and abundant nectar resources in and near the Sanctuary to provide early and season-long nectar for the butterflies. 4) Establish and institutionalize the annual adaptive management cycle. 5) Reduce conflict and increase cooperation among the City and stakeholders. 6) Maintain the site for decades to come as the forest inevitably changes.
If these actions are successful, then monitoring of the local distribution and abundance of the population will indicate success at:
1) Attracting monarch butterflies each fall.
2) Maintaining persistent monarch butterfly aggregations through the overwintering season
3) Establishing use of new/modified/old trees and branches as the forest changes through time.
Quantitative goals can eventually be developed from detailed analysis of monarch monitoring data over past years, the relative proportions at different sites south and north of the Sanctuary. These analyses are beyond the scope of this report.
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 9 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report of emergency directives/modifications.
DISCUSSION
The City Manager during this Local Emergency is authorized to directly mitigate effects of the Local Emergency to protect life or property.
This report apprises the City Council of emergency directives taken under the continuing local emergency proclaimed by Resolution 20-007. This report fulfills the City Council’s review obligation under that Resolution and Government Code 8630. This agenda item also enables ratification of select actions taken since the City Council’s last review.
City expenditures for legal services related to COVID-19 issues (specifically to related to COVID 19-COM (Communications); COVID 19-TRN (Training); COVID 19-LAW (Legal Support); and COVID-19 (Other)) are eligible for State and Federal Emergency Service reimbursement, including but not limited to FEMA or other emergency grant funding.
Actions not subject to Ratification. Since the time of the revised Monterey County Shelter in Place Order issued Friday, April 3, 2020, the City Manager has taken the following new or modified actions pursuant to the Emergency Proclamation:
None to report at this time.
No action is necessary with respect to the above new or modified measures, as each is responsive to requirements of the revised Monterey County Shelter in Place Order falling within the regular management discretion of the City Manager.
Actions subject to Ratification. Certain mitigation measures that have been enacted by the City Manager in response to the Monterey County Shelter in Place Order issued Friday, May 8, 2020, and in accord with Council’s Local Emergency under Article 19, subparagraph l, of the Pacific Grove City Charter, and Chapter 3.20 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), are subject to ratification.
Any mitigation measures that qualify are subject to ratification as required by Government Code 8630 and City Council Resolution 20-007, and are listed below:
PGCC 9-7-2022
and City Council Resolution 20-007, and are listed below:
1. None to report at this time.
Discussion of Circumstances Needing Emergency Response. The discussion part of this item allows comment on circumstances which may benefit from further or different emergency responses. Matters identified will be referred to the City Manager for appropriate consideration in accord with the Emergency Management System protocols set by PGMC Chapter 3.20. These delegate exclusive emergency management response authority to the City Manager.
CEQA Exemption. Actions taken to prevent or mitigate an emergency are exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15260 of the CEQA Guidelines.
OPTIONS
Actions not subject to ratification are reported for information only.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact in receiving the report.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 10 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Beautification and Natural Resources Committee Minutes: July 19, 2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
July 2022 Minutes
PGCC 9-7-2022
Subject: BNRC July 19th
, 2022 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the meeting minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER 4:00pm
Wooten, Green, McKenna, Ingram, Pineda Tibbs, absent Myers and Vierneisel (tardy)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
McKenna moved to accept the agenda, Ingram 2nd, vote approved 5-0
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) • Gho- Introduced George Fuerst as the new Environmental Programs Mgr. He has been with the City 4 weeks. He has already met with members of subcommittees and we welcome George. Fuerst responded that he is happy to be here. • Wooten- announced and welcomed new commissioner, Claudia Pineda Tibbs. They are employed by MBA as the Sustainablity Programs Manager • Wooten noted that Claudia Vierneisel has joined the meeting.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS –
• Councilmember Coletti-made 2 announcements. There will be an item on council August 17th agenda that will deal with restrictions on city issue permits for any roadwork on Oceanview Blvd during pupping season. This would restrict work permits during pupping season. Also bringing forth in September a wildlife commission report on forming the wildlife commission. It will be to set up the framework for that.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments:
• Dominic Sinicropi- Objects to the way that BNRC addresses the issue of maintenance of the Monarch Sanctuary. The agenda contains only Weiss’ annual report and the commission shows a bias to only consider proposed maintenance from a single source. Stated that he has submitted reports with no comments or acknowledgements from the commission. The second microclimate report supports the recommendations of the first report and the commission has made not comment.
Refers to the Dr. Leon report of 20 years ago recommending an interior cluster of trees be planted. Recommends a public meeting to consider all recommendations. • Lisa Ciani- Welcomed Claudia Pineda Tibbs on the BNRC as Claudia is passionate about environmental issues, and George Fuerst as EP Mgr., supports Sinicropi’s views and hopes they will get attention now, excited about Coletti’s comments and work to protect the wildlife.
Written comments-June (4): Joyce Halibi- Updated BNRC on CIP and ARPA projects, Charles Cha- of the Monterey Bay Chinese Assoc. requesting a Chinese Pavilion be built on the PG coast, Councilmember Coletti notified BNRC of George Fuerst appointed as Env.
Programs Mgr., Patricia Hamilton (email chain) on the need for a sustainable storefront beautification with plants.
Written comments-July (4): Inge Lorentzen Daumer noted absence of May minutes in the agenda packet & correction of Dewey Ave 7e, Jim Herbert (forwarded from council) on potential donating the leasing of his metal shark sculpture to PG, Lisa Ciani on 7e tree planting to urge use of LCP and 2015 Tree Inventory Report, Dominic Sinicropi shared the 2 nd annual report on the microclimate of PG Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary that supports establishing an interior tree cluster as previously recommended.
6. APPROVAL OF THE MAY MINUTES -added as errata sheet to agenda Vierneisel motion to approve, McKenna 2nd, approved 6,0 PGCC 9-7-2022
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Chinese Pavilion Project
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive report and form a subcommittee to evaluate the concept Public Comments:
• Dixie Laine reminded commission that the Japanese community led by Mr. Oto wanted to have a Japanese tea house on the coast that was fully funded but the City did not want to obstruct the coastline. So if this project is accepted, you would have to go back and revisit others that were denied,
• Lisa Ciani- Thinks it’s a lovely idea but the Walkway of Remembrance is too but doesn’t obstruct the public view and should be under the prevue of the Coastal Commission, there is issue with where do you draw the line, our coast is unique, please be aware of the LCP and the CC when subcommittee considers this, would like the Walkway of Remembrance to be considered, with boulder plaques telling the story along the trail.
• Thom Akeman: Wasn’t sure about the idea of the pavilion but if it’s a construction it could be a problem. The area around Hopkins is limited and toward the mural is erosion area. A structure is problematic, if there is a memorial bench that could be considered.
Commissioner Comments:
• Green- Agree with Dixie and Thom concerning the location around Hopkins to the mural. If it were in grassy areas around Berwick or Lovers Point where there are gathering areas with no erosion issues or no seal pupping nearby. • Vierneisel- like the idea but echoed not sure where along the coast, maybe closer to the city or Berwick Park away from the erosion. We need more investigating on locations.
• Wooten stated that she agrees with problems with a structure along the coastline would be difficult to do and it isn’t practical. Also other proposals for memorials- where do you draw the line and how inclusive can you be. We could have a subcommittee come back with alternatives as well as the possibility of not agreeing to this, or some kind of other memorial that would be more inclusive. We do have the mural that is in need of repair.
• McKenna stated that this could be a continuation of the mural project as a CIP, knowing it didn’t get funded, maybe there is a broader discussion on what is going to happen with the mural and how this might relate to it. We need to contact Mr. Cha for more discussion on location. Agree with subcommittee
• Wooten asked what was thought of other proposals that have been denied. That is an issue
• Ingram asked if it would depend on the history of the request for a memorial. Stated she is not informed on the Japanese history here because we haven’t had such an issue come to the forefront as we have with the Chinese community. Thinks this would have some weight in the decision and that it isn’t open for everyone- it’s open for historical purposes.
RECOMMENDED: Art subcommittee will discuss
B. Lovers Point Art Project, Dumpster Design
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive Report and ask art subcommittee for artwork approval Public Comments:
PGCC 9-7-2022
• Lisa Ciani- did not recall an artist being selected and would like a review of that process, concerned about the translation of the artwork onto the dumpster Commissioner Comments:
• Ingram- Wanted to clarify that the original plan of this project had to be adjusted due to the timing and missing off season preparation. The barrels would be the phase where artists will be submitting work and the community outreach will be done. With an artist managing the project, the two dumpsters will be painted with her supervision. The artist rendering is not exact.
ACTION: Ingram motioned to approve art rendition as an example of how the dumpsters will be painted, McKenna 2nd, approved 6-0.
C. AB 1276 Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive report and provide direction Public Comments:
• None
Commissioner Comments:
• Ingram shared that the plastics subcommittee met with Fuerst to discuss AB1276 and the PG Plastics ordinance as well as met with Jenny MacMurdo of the Chamber. She was aware of the bill and is ready to work with the BNRC and is ready to go forward.
Also food service platforms like Door Dash have a selection to opt out of having foodware, the public will now have to opt in with this bill, so now you will have to choose that you want it instead of declining foodware.
NO ACTION:
D. Monarch Sanctuary Annual Report
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive the report
Public Comments:
• Dominic Sinicropi -has had negative view of the annual reports and this is no exception. Methodology is important in scientific study. Weiss only visits the sanctuary a couple of times a year and depends on computationally predicted data.
It’s fake data instead of actual data, he predicts wind based on data from the Monterey Airport that were not corroborated with actual data from last 2 years. Urges not to thin the trees that were used by overwintering monarchs this year, and requests a community meeting to discuss and review recommendations made in this report before they are approved.
• Dixie Layne- Stated she is one of the 6 volunteers that works in the sanctuary every week. Assumes there will be more opportunities to discuss these recommendations at another time and at the walk through, would like to clarify some parts of the executive summary- the pop drop due to storms: we did not have a lot of storms, we just had a few. More standard winter weather would have wiped them out – they could find no protection. The statement that monarchs clustered in the cypress trees was not trueStephanie’s report – they were in the eucalyptus in zones 3&4, and pines in zone 2.
Weiss did not consult any of the 6 volunteers that spend the most time in the sanctuary. These volunteers were not given a voice. The nectar plants that are there were selected by a master gardener. Natives that were beneficial were removed, many now are not native….10 foot space needed for eucalyptus? They only need 12”-24” space.
Commissioner Comments:
PGCC 9-7-2022
• Vierneisel- stated there seems to be many discrepencies and that she is looking forward to the walk through.
• Gho- the City will be embarking on a whole management plan that encompasses in and outside of the sanctuary, and we are currently pursuing a grant and if successful we will be redoing the original management plan but this will take some time but it will be the next step. Due to lack of funds, we are tied to this management plan. Stu looks at the long term while we struggle with the short term. Regional plan that will make management across the region uniform. The City has earmarked $25K as a match for state funding.
• Ingram- asked for clarification that there is not a set timeline for the new plan and Fuerst affirmed. The funding will go through the county regional conservation district and the funding is coming from the wildlife conservation board. • Wooten- asked if this is a 5 year wait or a 6 month wait until we know about the funding. Gho replied 6 months is a reasonable timeframe, but we need to move forward on acting to show we are managing the sanctuary for Fish and Wildlife. • Wooten- asked if we will be able to choose our own consultants and Gho affirmed. • McKenna- thanked Gho for timeline clarification and asked if the horticulturist consultant can review some of the concerns shared in public comment concerning native planting. Gho confirmed that this was happening.
E. BNRC Tree Planting Recommendations
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive report and provide direction Public Comments:
• Thom Akeman- thanked the commission for bringing this forward. Discussed the lack of follow through to the need to replenish the canopy loss of the last 25 years. This is a start and that’s good. GWP now has about 270 new Monterey Pines and shared about 10 were purchased at wholesale $70 each delivered so this money won’t go far but it’s a start.
• Lisa Ciani- Pleased that tree planting and watering are being addressed and asked for focus on replacing lost trees around town and plant near aging/dying trees that will need to be replaced, please follow guidelines in PG’s LCP policy focusing on native trees in our coastal zone. Private views are not protected, but it’s important not to block public views of the coastline as outlined in LCP policies, and hopes the public will be polled as they are aware of needs in their area. Oaks at the corner of Short and Alder need to be replaced.
• Kim Akeman- thanked the commission, and appreciates that the whole city is being considered, has seen tourists cluster under one big cypress for shade. With extreme heat, our trees will be more important.
• Inge Lorentzen Daumer- planting trees is fabulous, agreed with Lisa the stretch Dewey Avenue to 9th St. is a delicate area and the LCP is specific about certain things.
Hopes that choices will be in compliance.
Commissioner Comments:
• Wooten-thanked the subcommittee for the work done here. • Green- this chart is a starting point and made by observation, and stated concerns with LCP guidelines will be taken into consideration
• Wooten-asked PW to speak to the concern about maintaining newly planted trees.
Gho answered PW is struggling to water our landscaping in the drought and asked that newly planted trees be placed in areas easy to irrigate, possibly hold off until winter to plant in hopes of rains to establish them. Continued that in the last year, 1200 work orders that came through PW were fulfilled -staff time along with regular PGCC 9-7-2022
duties, we may need to look into the adopt a tree program, asking close neighbors if they would help water the tree, etc. He will be talking with city mgmt./council for approval of staff to irrigate trees.
• Wooten- agreed waiting for fall/winter is a good idea, asked about downtown trees and others that need replacing. Gho responded with detailing the labor requirements to water, etc.
• Wooten- asked what the BNRC could do to help facilitate the hiring of the needed staffing requirements of the project. Gho responded that as an advisory board, the BNRC could reach out to council members when Public Works requests this needed staffing for support, but understands the constraints associated with more staff that council needs to address.
• Wooten- asked if contractors could suffice and Gho answered that is has been considered.
• Vierneisel-suggested polling/ door knocking to see if an adopt a tree program would be of interest to the public, perhaps using Nextdoor, etc. This would take some strategic planning. GWP has 17 people volunteering.
• Wooten- suggested the tree subcommittee look into these ideas. • Gho- reiterated that we need to find ways to motivate the public to plant trees on their property. PW has the $28K that could be used to purchase trees for people to plant on their property and maintain. Some of the $35K will be needed for downtown. We need help to get this going. In the meantime, PW and city arborist Weifuss will continue to plant trees in recommended areas and report them to the tree subcommittee. • Vierneisel-asked if the BNRC could reach out directly to the public to ask if they would plant trees and Gho responded that he would check with staff to be sure • Ingram- mentioned that education on how to care for the trees is a component of the adopt a tree to consider, also asked about underground streams that are around the city, it would be nice to have a map of this water source so that we could take advantage of it when planting.
• Tibbs- mentioned that water being precious in CA there may be an opportunity to see what other cities are doing, for example Palo Alto launched a rain barrel program to encourage residents to collect water, if that could be funded in a budget for a barrel to be placed near a needed watering area. The volunteers and tree adopters could access this water.
• Gho – responded that nurse tanks have been discussed and GWP was a potential site which we could fill with our recycled water source. It is an option. • Vierniesel- shared that she went to Garden Show in Santa Cruz/Capitola house tour and all of the homes had rain barrels, and every gutter down spout. • Ingram- mentioned the City has some good resources for this sort of thing, and will look for it and share later.
8. NEXT MEETING- August 16th, 2022 at 4pm
9. ADJOURNMENT: 5:38pm -Ingram motioned, Green 2nd, approved 6-0 Colleen Ingram, Secretary
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 10 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kerry Lindstrom, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Economic Development Commission Minutes: June 9, 2022 and July 14, 2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes
Attachments
June Minutes
July Minutes
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 10 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vincent Garcia, Administrative Technician
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Minutes: May 28, 2022, and July 26, 2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
TSC 052422
TSC 072622
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 13 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: LULAC District Elections Letter
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Attorney to advise Council on a response to the League of United Latin American Citizens’ (LULAC) demand for district elections and authorize the Mayor to sign a legal services agreement with the law firm of Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni, LLP to provide legal advice to the City Council in regard to the issues of the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”).
DISCUSSION
LULAC sent a letter via email on 8/25/22 to the City regarding district elections (Attachment 1).
The CVRA specifies conditions for local at-large and district elections. A Voting Rights Act Status Review was presented to Council on 12/1/21 (Attachment 2) City Charter Article 6 ‘Officers and Employees’ states “The Mayor and the members of the Council shall be elected from the City at large.”
Marguerite Leoni is a partner in the law firm of Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni, LLP.
A copy of the resume of the Nielsen firm is attached (Attachment 3) and at page 23 is a description of the experience of Ms. Leoni which notes that Ms. Leoni has represented numerous state agencies, municipalities, counties, school districts and other special districts on districting, redistricting, voting rights and electoral matters, including unique expertise in the California Voting Rights Act.
Given these circumstances, it is wise to have legal review by the City Attorney and the Nielsen firm before providing any response to the letter from LULAC.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Cost not to exceed $100,000 unless approved by Council.
PGCC 9-7-2022
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
Attachments
LULAC Letter
Voting Rights Act PPT
Resume of NMPGL, LLP
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
PGCC 9-7-2022
Agenda No. 2 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: David Laredo, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: December 1, 2021
SUBJECT: Voting Rights Act Status Review
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation requested by Mayor Peake.
Attachments
PPT
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Voting Rights Act
Status Review
December 1, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 1
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
Elections Code Section 14040
Election systems cannot impair ability of a protected class to influence an election. A way to avoid CVRA challenges is to use area (“district” or “division”) elections. District/division elections require each council member reside within an area boundary. Successful election challenge can award reasonable attorney’s fee and expenses. * * * * * *
Pacific Grove now elect Council Members “at-large”: all City voters elect each member. 3 members are elected every even-numbered year & serve 4-year terms. 3 Council seats set for November 2022; the other 3 seats set for November 2024. The Mayor is elected for a 2-year term each even-numbered year.
December 1, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 2
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
Moving to Voter Election Districts
Non-at-large election districts must be based on U.S. Census data.
Change the at-large election to separate voter districts requires local neighborhoods and communities be grouped into separate election areas to select council members.
Before creating each voter division, the City Council must seek input regarding different maps before finalizing area maps for council member elections.
The public must have an opportunity to share their views on the election area boundaries that best represent the community.
December 1, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 3
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
Criteria used for voter districts
If practicable, election district lines must use the following criteria, in order of priority:
(1) geographically contiguous areas (each to share a common border with the next), (2) geographic integrity of neighborhoods to minimize separation, (3) identifiable boundaries, such as streets, highways, etc.), (4) geographic compactness is favored, and .
(5) boundaries that do not favor or discriminate against a political party.
December 1, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 4
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
What Is Redistricting?
Once voter districts are first created, election districts must be redrawn every ten years following the decennial census to ensure each voter area is substantially equal in population.
This process is called “redistricting.” The process ensures each elected official represents approximately the same number of constituents.
December 1, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 5
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
What Steps Are Involved?
Decide to Explore Creation on Voter Districts… or Not…
To Explore Voter Districts, engage an elections system demographer
1. Demographer costs approximate $15,000 to $35,000
2. Process can take 6 – 9 months
Public Engagement is Required
1. Publicize the voter district process using local media
2. Community groups notified via workshops, online posting of maps, and via a dedicated web page Voter Districts enacted by City Ordinance
December 17, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 6
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Questions?
December 1, 2021 David C. Laredo, City Attorney 7
PGCC 12-1-21
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022]
NIELSEN MERKSAMER’S REDISTRICTING
AND VOTING RIGHTS PRACTICE
One of Nielsen Merksamer’s leading specialties for more than 40 years has been advising public agencies—states, counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, on the complex web of federal and state laws governing voting rights and redistricting. Marguerite Leoni and Chris Skinnell co-chair the firm’s redistricting and voting rights practice, and their practices provide a unique combination of knowledge of redistricting law along with knowledge of and facility with the GIS systems and databases fundamental to redistricting and voting rights analysis. Other experienced voting rights litigators and advisors include Sean Welch, Hilary Gibson, and David Lazarus.
Just in the last decade alone, the firm has advised well over 100 public entities on all aspects of the redistricting process, state and federal voting rights law, including potential liability under the Federal and California Voting Rights Acts (“FVRA” and “CVRA”), on the process of transitioning from at-large voting to district-based elections, and on the substantive legal considerations regarding the drawing of the lines, including compliance with California’s recently-enacted FAIR MAPS Act.
And while no redistricting plan adopted by a public entity while advised by this firm has ever been successfully challenged in court,* we also have long experience litigating under these laws on behalf of public agencies.
Nielsen Merksamer is uniquely qualified and experienced to provide legal assistance and representation in developing and implementing redistricting plans and litigating voting rights issues – given its long experience in the field, deep understanding of the law, and sensitivity to the political context in which these issues arise.
Nielsen Merksamer’s voting rights and redistricting practice includes:
• Advising governmental entities on compliance with the complex and ever-changing state and federal legal requirements in drawing and redrawing district boundaries, including the federal and California Voting Rights Acts. This involves working closely with public agencies * Needless to say, prior results do not guarantee future outcomes. The results in each case depend on the facts of that case and may differ as facts differ.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 2 of 27
and their demographic and other consultants to address competing interests, develop a process for successful redistricting, and develop solutions to seemingly conflicting political demands and legal criteria. • Thorough knowledge of GIS systems, data sets and statistical methodology associated with voting rights litigation, which enables the firm to more precisely advise its public agency clients on redistricting matters and exposure to voting rights litigation.
• Litigation concerning all aspects of voting rights law, redistricting and elections law, including the federal and California Voting Rights Acts.
As the State’s premier political law firm, the firm brings to such litigation a deep understanding of the political and fiscal realities of its public agency clients and the need for a multifaceted approach to such litigation.
Our firm has provided legal representation in the following selected redistricting and voting rights matters since 2000. (Naturally, is not a comprehensive list because it does not include many additional projects that are confidential, including those that involve threatened or anticipated litigation that is not publicly known.)
SELECTED VOTING RIGHTS AND
REDISTRICTING PROJECTS, 2000-PRESENT*
A. REDISTRICTING/VOTING RIGHTS COUNSEL.
• States:
o New Mexico Citizens Redistricting Commission: served as voting rights and redistricting counsel to New Mexico’s first Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2021 concerning all aspects of the Voting Rights Act and traditional state redistricting criteria
o State of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission:
Represented consultant to the Commission concerning all aspects of the 2001 first ever citizen-commission redistricting of the state’s Congressional and legislative districts including United States Attorney General preclearance under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
* Information regarding the firm’s pre-2000 voting rights and redistricting practice can be requested.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 3 of 27
o Senate of the State of Florida: Represented the Florida State Senate concerning all aspects of the state’s 2001 Congressional and state Senatorial redistricting including United States Attorney General preclearance under the federal Voting Rights Act; special litigation counsel in state and federal courts defending against constitutional and Voting Rights Act
challenges to the plans.
• Counties:
o Merced County, California: Nielsen Merksamer has
represented the County for more than two decades concerning voting rights and elections issues, including United States Attorney General preclearance under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act and voting rights litigation. In 2001, 2011, and 2021, the firm served as special counsel to the County concerning all aspects of the redistricting of the county’s supervisorial districts. Further, as discussed below, following an extensive audit process and successfully defending the County in litigation alleging Voting Rights Act violations (Lopez v. Merced County), the firm represented the County in successfully seeking judicial approval of bailout from its Section 5 obligations, making the County the largest jurisdiction to successfully exit Section 5 coverage. Merced County v. Holder, Case No. 12-cv-00354-TFHDST-ABJ (D.D.C. 2012) (three-judge § 5 court) (consent judgment filed Aug. 31, 2012).
o San Diego County, California: We advised the County Board of Supervisors concerning all aspects of the redistricting of the county’s supervisorial districts in 2011, and the firm served as general counsel to the County’s first-ever Independent
Redistricting Commission in its 2021-2022 redistricting process as well.
o Tulare County, California: We represented the County
concerning all aspects of the redistricting of its supervisorial districts in 2001, 2011, and 2021, including advice to the Redistricting Advisory Committee and County Board of
Supervisors.
o Monterey County, California: We served as special voting rights counsel to the County with regard to its 2011 and 2021 supervisorial redistrictings. We also represented the County as special counsel with regard to United States Attorney General PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 4 of 27
preclearance of the County’s 2001 and 2011 supervisorial redistrictings under the federal Voting Rights Act.
o Kern County, California: After representing the County in litigation under the FVRA, as discussed below, we advised the County Board of Supervisors regarding its 2021 redistricting process to avoid potential voting rights pitfalls in redrawing lines previously approved by a federal court.
o Marin County, California: in 2021 we advised the County Board of Supervisors regarding redrawing its supervisorial lines and compliance with the newly-enacted FAIR MAPS Act.
o Yuma County, Arizona: Special voting rights counsel to the County with regard to its 2011 supervisorial redistricting.
Represented the County with regard to United States Attorney General preclearance of the county’s 2011 supervisorial redistricting under the federal Voting Rights Act.
• Cities/California Voting Rights Act: Since the CVRA’s enactment in 2001, and especially in the years following the decision upholding the Act’s constitutionality in 2006, we have represented dozens of public agencies, including cities, in responding to threatened litigation under the Act. Many of these are discussed in the “Litigation” section below, but in addition to those that ended up in active litigation we have also advised the following additional cities in addressing potential CVRA litigation (again, these are only the projects that can be made public):
o City of Atascadero
o City of Chino
o City of Covina
o City of Encinitas
o City of Fremont
o City of Hemet
o City of Kingsburg
o City of Los Banos
o City of Martinez
o City of Napa
o City of Novato
o City of Redlands
o City of San Luis Obispo
o City of San Mateo
o City of San Rafael
o City of Santa Maria
o City of Solana Beach
o City of Sunnyvale
o City of West Covina
o City of Wildomar
o City of Victorville
o City of Visalia
o Town of Yucca Valley
• Cities/(Re)districting: In addition to work under the CVRA, and in some cases growing out of the CVRA work we have done, we have represented dozens of cities concerning the drawing of new councilmanic PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 5 of 27
district lines or the redistricting of the cities’ councilmanic districts following the release of the Census, including:
o City of Buckeye, Arizona: Represented the City concerning Voting Rights Act compliance—including preparation of Attorney General preclearance submission—in connection with the
redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts in 2011. o City of Compton, California: Following a vote to adopt by-district elections, advised the City regarding the readjustment of its councilmanic district boundaries based on the 2010 Census. o City of Elk Grove, California: In connection with the City’s decennial redistricting process, advised the City regarding the move from five councilmanic districts to four districts with a separately-elected Mayor.
o City of Encinitas, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021- 2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of Fresno, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021- 2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of Glendale, Arizona: Represented the City concerning Voting Rights Act compliance—including preparation of Attorney General preclearance submission—in connection with the
redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts in 2011. o City of Los Banos, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021-2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of Modesto, California: Following litigation under the CVRA, retained to advise the City regarding compliance with federal voting rights law and its commission process for moving to bydistrict councilmanic elections. o City of Moreno Valley, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021-2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 6 of 27
o City of Orange, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021- 2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of San Diego, California: Represented the City concerning voting rights aspects of the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts in 2011.
o City of San Rafael, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021-2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of Santa Barbara, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021-2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of Stockton, California: Represented the City concerning all aspects of the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts in 2011.
o City of Sunnyvale, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021-2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
o City of Surprise, Arizona: Represented the City concerning Voting Rights Act compliance—including preparation of Attorney General preclearance submission—in connection with the
redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts in 2011. o City of Visalia, California: Represented the City concerning the redistricting of the City’s councilmanic districts during the 2021- 2022 cycle, including Voting Rights Act issues and compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act.
• School & Community College Districts/CVRA: Legal
representation of dozens of school districts and community college districts regarding potential liability under the California Voting Rights Act. Representations included:
o Community College Districts:
Coast Community College District
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 7 of 27
Cerritos Community College District (litigation discussed below)
Glendale Community College District (voluntary move to trustee areas after litigation, discussed below, was
dismissed)
Santa Clarita Community College District (litigation
discussed below)
San Diego Community College District
State Center Community College District
West Hills Community College District
o San Diego County Board of Education: We represent the County Board of Education regarding numerous school districts’ proposals to adopt by-trustee area voting in response to litigation threatened under the CVRA.
o San Diego County School Districts: represented numerous San Diego County school districts concerning CVRA matters and redistricting:
Cajon Valley Union School District
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Coronado Unified School District
Del Mar Union School District
Escondido Union High School District
Fallbrook Union Elementary District
Fallbrook Union High School District
Grossmont Union High School District
Jamul-Dulzura Union School District
La Mesa-Spring Valley School District
Lakeside Union School District
Lemon Grove School District
National School District
Palomar Community College District
Poway Unified School District
San Marcos Unified School District
South Bay Union School District
Spencer Valley Elementary School District
Sweetwater Union High School District
Vallecitos School District
Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District
o Fresno County Office of Education: Representation advising the County Superintendent regarding potential liability and issues under the CVRA.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 8 of 27
o Fresno County School Districts: represented several Fresno County school districts in moving to trustee areas, to avoid any potential for CVRA liability:
Fresno Unified School District
Firebaugh-Las Deltas Joint Unified School District
Fowler Unified School District
Golden Plains Unified School District
Caruthers Unified School District
West Fresno Elementary School District
o Kern County Office of Education: Advise the County
Superintendent regarding potential liability and issues under the California Voting Rights Act.
o Kern County School Districts: represented several Kern County school districts concerning CVRA matters and
redistricting:
Kern Union High School District.
Bakersfield City School District.
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District
McFarland Unified School District
Rosedale Union School District
Greenfield Union School District
Fruitvale School District
Arvin Union School District
o Tulare County Office of Education: Representation advising the County Superintendent regarding potential liability and issues under the CVRA.
o Tulare County School Districts: represented more than a dozen school districts concerning CVRA matters and
redistricting:
Visalia Unified School District
Tulare Joint Union High School District
Tulare City School District
Porterville Unified School District
Lindsay Unified School District
Woodlake Public Schools (in connection with unification) Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District
Monson-Sultana Joint Elementary School District
Burton School District
Kings River Elementary School District
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 9 of 27
Strathmore Elementary School District
Sundale Elementary School District
Sunnyside Elementary School District
Sunnyside Elementary School District
Alta Vista School District
Alpaugh Unified School District
Buena Vista Elementary School District
Farmersville Unified School District
Liberty School District
Columbine Elementary School District
Oak Valley Elementary School District
Palo Verde Elementary School District
Pixley Elementary School District
Pleasant View Elementary School District
Rockford Elementary School District
Terra Bella Union School District
Traver Joint Union Elementary School District
Waukena Joint Union Elementary School District
o Napa County Office of Education: Advised the County
Superintendent regarding potential liability and issues under the California Voting Rights Act.
o Madera Unified School District: Represented the school district that had been sued under the California Voting Rights Act in the legal process for moving to by-trustee area elections. o Merced Union High School District: Represented the school district in the process of moving to by-trustee area elections and adjusting its existing trustee area boundaries in time for its 2009 elections.
o Numerous Other School Districts: Retained to assess dozens of districts’ potential risk of suit and liability under the California Voting Rights Act, and to advise the districts regarding the legal significance of demographic studies commissioned by the districts.
• School & Community College Districts/(Re)districting: In addition to work under the CVRA, and in some cases growing out of the CVRA work we have done, we have represented dozens of school districts and other education institutions concerning redistricting of the districts’ trustee areas following the release of the Census, including:
o Bakersfield City School District
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 10 of 27
o Cajon Valley Elementary School District
o Coast Community College District
o College of the Sequoias
o Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District
o El Tejon School District
o Fresno Unified School District
o Grossmont Union High School District
o Kern County Board of Education
o Kern High School District
o Lakeside Union School District (Kern County)
o Merced Community College District
o MiraCosta Community College District
o Norris School District
o Orange County Board of Education
o Panama-Buena Vista School District
o Richland Elementary School District
o San Diego Community College District
o San Diego County Board of Education
o San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
o Santa Clarita Community College District
o Tehachapi Elementary School District
o West Hills Community College District
• Special District Representations:
o Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District: initially assisted the District in adopting by-division elections in response to a threat of litigation under the CVRA and then advised the District Board on redistricting following the 2020 Census. o Consolidated Irrigation District: Represented CID in
conducting first redistricting in 80 years in 2001; sought and obtained preclearance of new redistricting plan and dozens of historical annexations. Represented the District in readjusting its director division lines in 2011 following release of the 2010 Census.
o Fresno Irrigation District: Represented this large irrigation district with regard to revising and updating its electoral system in compliance with federal and state redistricting and voting rights laws in 2001, and in readjusting its director division lines in 2011 following release of the 2010 Census.
o Kings River Conservation District: Represented this district with regard to revising and updating its electoral system in compliance with federal and state redistricting and voting rights PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 11 of 27
laws in 2005, in in readjusting its director division lines in 2011 and 2021-2022, following release of the 2010 and 2020 Censuses, respectively, and in obtaining required preclearances from the U.S. Attorney General when the District was subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
o Merced Irrigation District: Represented this large irrigation district with regard to readjusting its director division lines in 2011 and 2021, following release of the 2010 and 2020 Censuses, respectively. Obtained U.S. Attorney General preclearance for the 2011 redistricting.
o Santa Clara County Open Space Authority: Represented the District in readjusting its director division lines in 2011 and 2021- 2022, following release of the 2010 and 2020 Censuses,
respectively.
o Santa Clara Valley Water District: Represented the water district in implementing a redistricting plan pursuant to recently enacted AB 466, and in readjusting its director division lines in 2011 following release of the 2010 Census and then redistricting again following the release of the 2020 Census.
o 2021-2022 Redistricting: In addition to the foregoing projects, advised the following special districts on redistricting their director divisions following the release of the 2020 Census:
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Washington Hospital District
Water Replenishment District of Southern Cal.
West Basin Water District
West Valley Water District
• Other Notable Voting Rights/Redistricting Projects:
o Yes on Proposition 11: Represented the campaign regarding preclearance of Proposition 11, the 2008 ballot measure that established an independent commission for redistricting of state legislative offices in California.
o Yes on Proposition 20: Represented the campaign regarding preclearance of Proposition 20, the 2010 ballot measure that expanded the duties of Proposition 11’s independent commission for redistricting to congressional offices in California.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 12 of 27
o California Administrative Office of the Courts: Represented the AOC in obtaining United States Attorney General
preclearance for the unification of California’s trial courts. The firm also obtained preclearance of statewide constitutional and statutory amendments (Proposition 220, Proposition 191, S.B. 2139) and the Rules of Court enabling trial court unification. Also, obtained United States Attorney General preclearance of the unification of the superior and municipal courts of Monterey and Kings Counties.
o Monterey County Office of Education: Represented the
county committee in its consideration of a proposal to change the at large electoral system of Monterey Peninsula Community College District to by-trustee area elections. Obtained United States Attorney General preclearance of the adopted change. o Tulare County Board of Education: Represented the County Board of Education concerning all aspects of the redistricting of its trustee areas in 2001 and 2011, including United States Attorney General preclearance under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
o City of Atwater, California: Represented the City seeking preclearance of voting changes under the federal Voting Rights Act.
o Redistricting & Voting Rights Counsel to numerous other counties, boards, college districts, school districts, water districts in California and Arizona for redistricting and voting rights advice, including among others the City of Rancho Mirage, City of Hanford, City of Reedley, City of Surprise, AZ, Alta Irrigation District, Riverdale Unified School District, Twin Rivers Unified School District, and Kings Canyon Unified School District, among others.
B. LITIGATION.
• Dolores Huerta Fdn. v. Panama-Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist., Case No. 1:22-cv-00226-AWI-BAK (E.D. Cal. filed Feb. 22, 2022):
Currently representing this school district in a suit challenging the District’s now-abandoned multimember electoral system under the federal Voting Rights Act and related laws; advised the District on transition from multi-member system to single-member trustee areas for 2022 and beyond).
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 13 of 27
• HQH Chinese Am. Equalization Assn. v. City of Arcadia, Case No. 22STCP01878 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. filed 2022):
Currently representing the City of Arcadia in defending its adopted redistricting map against claims that (1) the adoption was illegal because the deciding vote was cast by an “illegally” appointed councilmember and (2) the adopted map violates the FAIR MAPS Act, U.S. Constitution, Voting Rights Act, etc.
• Tate v. City of Morgan Hill, Case No. 22CV396857 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. filed 2022): In a rare instance of representing a non-public entity client, represented members of the local community in successfully challenging the Morgan Hill City Council’s adoption or revised councilmanic districts, on the grounds that the map violated the FAIR MAPS Act).
• David v. San Francisco Redistricting Task Force, et al., Case No.
CPF-22-517741 (San Francisco Superior Court filed 2022):
Represented local citizens in suit under Elections Code § 21629 based on the San Francisco Redistricting Task Force’s failure to complete redistricting by Charter deadline; dismissed as moot following the adoption of a map supported by plaintiffs.
• Higginson v. Becerra, 590 U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 2807, 207 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2020): Filed brief amicus curiae on behalf of six California cities supporting review of the constitutionality of the California Voting Rights Act by the United States Supreme Court.
• Robles v. City of Ontario, Case No. DS2007038 (San Bernardino County Super. Ct. filed 2020): Currently defending the City’s determination to move to district-based voting starting in 2022, following the release of new Census data.
• Sanchez v. City of Martinez, Case No. C-18-02219 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. filed 2018): Successfully represented city in defense of its redistricting plan, adopted under the “safe harbor” of the California Voting Rights Act, against a claim that the map considered improper criteria.
• Southwestern Voter Registration & Educ. Project v. City of Orange, Case No. 30-2019-01051924-CU-CR-CJC (Orange County Super. Ct. filed 2019): Representing City in defense against claim under the CVRA and districting process.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 14 of 27
• Salas v. City of Palm Desert, Case No. PSC-1903800 (Riverside County Super. Ct. filed 2019): Representing Defendant in action under the California Voting Rights Act and in adoption of district lines. • Southwestern Voter Registration & Educ. Project v. City of Camarillo, Case No. 56-2018-00522031-CU-CR-VTA (Ventura County Super. Ct. filed 2018): Representing City in defense against claim under the CVRA, where City had not adopted “safe harbor” resolution but had informed plaintiffs’ counsel of its intention to consider plaintiffs’ demand in advance of next municipal election. • Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1945, 204 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2019): Filed brief amicus curiae on behalf of the American Legislative Exchange Council arguing in favor of the standing of legislators to defend a redistricting plan when the State’s governor and/or attorney general decline to do so.
• No. Carolina v. Covington, 583 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 974 (2018): Filed brief amicus curiae on behalf of multiple states’ chief elections officials concerning logistical issues relating to last-minute injunctions against districting plans.
• Luna v. County of Kern, Case No. 1:16-cv-00568-DAD-JLT (E.D.
Cal. filed Apr. 22, 2016): Represented the County of Kern, California, in defending against a challenge to its 2011 supervisorial districts under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
• Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 788, 197 L. Ed. 2d 85 (2017): Filed brief amicus curiae on behalf of political scientists concerning techniques for identifying racially polarized voting in a case concerning the legal standard for determining whether race predominated in the drawing of Virginia’s legislative districts.
• Jaramillo v. City of Fullerton, Case No. 30-2014-007375780-CUCR-CJC (Orange Co. Super. Ct. filed 2014): Advised city on voting rights aspects of settlement of litigation under the CVRA. • Ariz. Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 192 L. Ed. 2d 704 (2015): Represented former California Governors Deukmejian, Wilson and Schwarzenegger; the California Chamber of Commerce; Charles Munger, Jr.; and Bill Mundell, as amici curiae on a brief that successfully urged the Supreme Court to reject a challenge to congressional districting by an independent commission, rather than a state’s legislature; the majority PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 15 of 27
opinion quoted (without attribution) a passage from the firm’s brief discussing the original meaning of the term “Legislature” as reflected in founding-era dictionaries.
• Vandermost v. Bowen, 53 Cal. 4th 421 (2012): Represented Charles T. Munger, Jr., the leading proponent of Propositions 11 and 20, as amicus curiae, addressing the possible remedies that the Court could employ in the event that it concluded the Senate Map drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission could not be used in 2012 due to a pending referendum petition against the map.
• Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, Appeal Nos. B251793 & B253713 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist.): Retained following entry of trial court’s July 23, 2013 order finding liability under the California Voting Rights Act, to represent the City in connection with the remedial stage of trial court proceedings, and on appeal. The case ultimately settled. • Banales, et al. v. City of Santa Barbara, Case No. 1468167 (Santa Barbara Superior Court filed July 29, 2014): Represented City of Santa Barbara in defense of suit challenging at-large electoral system under CVRA; settled prior to trial, resulting in adoption of district-based elections. The firm has been retained to represent the City in its 2021- 2022 redistricting process as well.
• Melliz v. City of Bellflower, Case No. 551555 (Los Angeles Super.
Ct. filed July 14, 2014): Represented the City of Bellflower in defense of suit challenging at-large electoral system under CVRA; settled, resulting in adoption of district map, and placing the questions of changing to district-based elections on the ballot.
• Diego v. City of Whittier, Case No. BC517363 (Los Angeles Super.
Ct. filed Aug. 5, 2013): Represented the City of Whittier in defense of suit challenging at-large electoral system under the CVRA, and on appeal from trial court order in favor of City dismissing action after City implemented district-based elections through the political process. • Soliz v. Santa Clarita Community College District, Case No.
BC512736 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed June 20, 2013):
Represented Santa Clarita Community College District in defense of suit challenging at-large electoral system under CVRA. This case settled on the eve of trial. The firm advised the District on subsequent implementation of the settlement agreement and the adoption of trustee areas.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 16 of 27
• Soliz v. City of Santa Clarita, Case No. BC512735 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed June 20, 2013): Represented the City of Santa Clarita in defense of a suit challenging at-large electoral system under CVRA; as part of the settlement process, successfully litigated complicated issues relating to the viability of cumulative voting as a remedy under the California Voting Rights Act.
• Avitia v. Tulare Local Healthcare District, Case No. 07-224773 (Tulare County Super. Ct. 2007): Represented the individual board members, named as defendants in their official capacities in an action under the California Voting Rights Act alleging that the healthcare district’s at-large electoral system is illegal under the Act. Successfully opposed a motion for preliminary injunction and summary judgment, and conducted extensive expert discovery. This case settled the Friday before opening statements to commence trial.
• Moreno v. City of Anaheim, Case No. 30-2012-00579998-CU-CRCXC (Orange Co. Super. Ct. filed June 28, 2012): Represented the City of Anaheim in defense of a suit challenging at-large electoral system under CVRA. The City settled the case by agreeing to submit the issue of district-based voting to the City’s electorate. Following approval of district-based voting by the electors, our firm advised the City in connection with the districting process.
• Pinto v. Glendale Community College District, Case No.
BC490354 (Los Angeles Co. Super. Ct. filed Aug. 15, 2012):
Represented the District (as co-counsel with the District’s general counsel firm) in defense of suit challenging at-large electoral system under CVRA. The suit was ultimately dismissed.
• Gonzalez v. City of Compton, Case No. BC450494 (Los Angeles Co.
Super. Ct. filed Dec. 2, 2010): Represented City in defense of a suit challenging from-district electoral system under CVRA. Successfully opposed a motion for preliminary injunction and summary judgment, and conducted extensive expert discovery. After the case was mooted by a public vote to adopt by-district elections, represented the City in successfully mediating plaintiffs’ demand for attorneys’ fees resulting in an award of less than a third of the demand. The firm also represented Compton in its subsequent redistricting process.
• Chavez v. Cerritos Community College District, Case No.
BC470595 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed Sept. 27, 2011):
Represented the District in opposing an action under the California Voting Rights Act; moving to trustee area elections; and negotiating an PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 17 of 27
attorneys’ fee award of approximately 1/3 the amount demanded by plaintiffs.
• Gomez v. Hanford JUHSD, Case No. 04C0294 (Kings County Super. Ct. 2004): Represented the school district and Kings County Board of Education in defense of one of the very first actions under the California Voting Rights Act, negotiating a very favorable settlement of the action.
• Brown v. Bowen, Case No. 12-cv-05547-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. 2012):
Represented Californians to Defend the Open Primary, the Independent Voter Project, former Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado, and David Takashima, in successfully seeking intervention and in defending against challenges to Proposition 14, the Top Two Open Primary Act, based on the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
• Lopez v. Merced County, Case No. 06-CIV-01526-OWW-DLB (E.D.
Cal. filed Oct. 27, 2006): Successfully opposed motions for TRO and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the certification of municipal election results in November 2006 under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act. Lopez v. Merced County, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Successfully moved to dismiss first amended complaint on jurisdictional grounds, Lopez v. Merced County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44426 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2007), and successfully moved for summary judgment on the second amended complaint based upon plaintiffs’ lack of standing to challenge historical polling place changes. Lopez v. Merced County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3941 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2008). • Merced County, Cal. v. Holder, Case No. 1:12-cv-00354-TFH-DSTABJ (D.D.C.) (three-judge § 5 court) (consent judgment and decree filed Aug. 31, 2012): Represented the County of Merced in successfully obtaining “bailout” from its obligations under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, making it the largest jurisdiction ever to obtain bailout.
• Alta Irrig. Dist., Cal. v. Holder, Case No. 1:11-cv-00758-RJL-DHGPLF (D.D.C.) (three-judge § 5 court) (consent judgment and decree filed July 15, 2011): Represented the District in successfully obtaining “bailout” from its obligations under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, making it the first jurisdiction in California ever to obtain bailout.
• Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 186 L. Ed. 2d 651 (2013): On behalf of Merced County, filed an amicus PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 18 of 27
brief in the Supreme Court in this challenge to Section 5’s constitutionality, pre-emptively defending the County’s recent bailout from anticipated attack on the basis that the Department of Justice improperly permitted the bailout as part of a strategy to save Section 5. • League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006):
Filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the American Legislative Exchange Council & Free Enterprise Coalition, successfully urging the Court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that the 2003 legislative redistricting in Texas was invalid because mid-decade redistricting is per se unconstitutional.
• Hernandez v. Merced County, Case No. 03-CV-06147-OWW-DLB (E.D. Cal. filed Aug., 25, 2003) & Gallegos v. State of California, Case No. 03-CV-06157-OWW-DLB (E.D. Cal. filed Aug. 25, 2003):
Represented the County of Merced in successfully defending against a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the conduct of the 2003 gubernatorial recall election and related statewide ballot measures under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
• United States v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Muni. Water Dist., Case No. 00-CV-07903-AHM-BQRx (C.D. Cal. filed 7/21/2000):
Represented the district in defending a lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act to enjoin elections and compel interdecennial redistricting.
Defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction after which the case was dismissed with prejudice.
• City of Vista: Represented the City in an investigation and threatened litigation by the United States Department of Justice concerning a possible violation of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act arising from the City’s at-large electoral system. By taking a multifaceted approach to the defense, including instituting a parallel investigation that demonstrated that the legal standards under Section 2 could not be met, the Department of Justice terminated its investigation. • Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266, 119 S. Ct. 693, 142 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1999): Represented the Monterey County Municipal Court in obtaining preclearance of the consolidation of the municipal and justice courts. The firm also represented the municipal courts in a related enforcement action under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 19 of 27
C. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Recent publications and presentations by Nielsen Merksamer attorneys on voting rights and redistricting issues include:
• Skinnell, Follow-Up Interview re 2021 Redistricting, PublicCEO Report #16 (Sept. 16, 2021) (with Dr. Douglas Johnson & Ryder Todd Smith)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Presentation, Legal Requirements & Technical Aspects of Redistricting in 2021, RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CAL. (Mar. 5, 2021) (with Dr. Douglas Johnson)
• Skinnell, Interview re 2021 Redistricting, PublicCEO Report #6 (Feb. 18, 2021) (with Dr. Douglas Johnson & Ryder Todd Smith) • Skinnell, Presentation, 2021 Redistricting is Here—and the Rules Have Changed Again, LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES - CITY CLERKS NEW LAW & ELECTIONS SEMINAR (Dec. 18, 2020) (with Dr. Douglas Johnson, Shalice Tilton, and Elio Salazar)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Presentation, CLE Brown Bag Webinar:
2021 Redistricting – What County Counsel Needs to Know, COUNTY COUNSEL’S ASSN. OF CAL. (Dec. 17, 2020) (with Dr.
Douglas Johnson)
• Leoni, Moderator and Panelist, Timeline and Public Records Requirements, ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CONFERENCE: 2021 REDISTRICTING: NEW RULES FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS (Sept. 17, 2020) (with Shalice Tilton, Randi Johl, and Neal Kelley)
• Skinnell, Moderator and Panelist, Criteria for Redistricting, ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CONFERENCE: 2021 REDISTRICTING: NEW RULES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Sept. 17, 2020) (with Dr. Justin Levitt and Nicolas Heidorn, Esq.) • Skinnell & Welch, Presentation, Redistricting After 2020 Census, MUNI. L. INSTITUTE/BAR ASSN. OF SAN FRANCISCO (Mar. 6, 2020) (with Dr. Douglas Johnson)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Presentation, 2020-2021 California Redistricting:
A Legal and Legislative Update, COUNTY COUNSEL’S ASSN. OF CAL., MEETING & ROUNDTABLE OF COUNTY COUNSEL LEGAL
ADVISORS TO COUNTY ELEC. OFFICIALS (Jan. 17, 2020)
• Skinnell, Presentation, Redistricting 101 for Municipalities, LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES - CITY CLERKS NEW LAW & ELECTIONS SEMINAR (Dec. 12, 2019)
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 20 of 27
• Leoni & Skinnell, Webinar, Local Redistricting in California in 2021:
The Same… But Different, ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Nov. 7, 2019) (with Dr. Justin Levitt).
• Leoni & Skinnell, Webinar, “The California Voting Rights Act: A Revolution in Local Governance,” ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Oct. 24, 2019) (with Dr. Douglas Johnson) • Skinnell, Presentation: 2020 Census and Redistricting, STATE L. RES.
GROUP (Sept. 20, 2019)
• Skinnell, Panelist, Partisan Gerrymandering: 2019 Update, AM. BAR ASSN. YOUNG LAWYERS DIV. ANNUAL MEETING (Aug. 9, 2019)
• Skinnell, Presentation: District Elections, SANTA CLARA & SAN MATEO COUNTIES/CITIES JOINT MANAGERS MEETING (June 13, 2018)
• Skinnell, Presentation: Taking Voter Equality Seriously: What Does “One-Person, One-Vote” Really Mean?, ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Nov. 17, 2015)
• Leoni, Presentation, The California Voting Rights Act:
Understanding Your City’s CVRA Options: 2015 Update, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: 2015 ANNUAL CONFERENCE (Oct. 1, 2015) • Skinnell & Leoni, “Victory for California Voters, Too,” THE LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL (July 10, 2015) (article analyzing the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona Legislature v.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission)
• Skinnell, Presentation (Online Seminar), Arizona Legislature v.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Supreme Court Addresses the Future of Redistricting Reform in America, PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE (July 10, 2015)
• Skinnell, Presentation, Who Draws the Lines? Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Independent Redistricting Commissions?, ROSE INSTITUTE OF STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Apr. 6, 2015) (Moderator)
• Skinnell & Leoni, Guest Post: Response by Merced County’s Section 5 Lawyers to J. Christian Adams’s Article, ELECTION LAW BLOG, ELECTIONLAWBLOG.ORG (Dec. 3, 2013)
• Leoni, Presentation, The California Voting Rights Act: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITY MANAGERS DEPT. MEETING (Jan. 29, 2015)
• Skinnell, Webinar: The Supreme Court’s Shelby County & the Future of Voting Rights Enforcement, PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE (July 12, 2013)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Chapter 12: The California Voting Rights Act, AMERICA VOTES! A GUIDE TO MODERN ELECTION LAW AND VOTING RIGHTS (Am. Bar Assn. 2d ed. 2012)
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 21 of 27
• Skinnell, Presentation, Redistricting: Court Challenges & Legal Issues, THE COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS LAWS ANNUAL
CONFERENCE (Dec. 5, 2011)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Presentation, Redistricting Litigation: State & Local, CAL. ASSN. OF CLERKS & ELECTED OFFICIALS’ ANNUAL CONFERENCE (July 19, 2011)
• Skinnell, Presentation, Section 203 of the Federal Voting Rights Act, CAL. ASSN. OF CLERKS & ELECTED OFFICIALS’ ANNUAL
CONFERENCE (July 19, 2011)
• Leoni, Presentation, Redistricting 2011: Legal Overview & Practical Considerations, CAL. COUNTY COUNSELS’ ASSN CONFERENCE (Apr. 14, 2011)
• Skinnell, Presentation, Commuter Flight: Participating In Local Redistricting, CAL. REDISTRICTING ALLIANCE: REDISTRICTINGCA CONF. (Mar. 31, 2011)
• Skinnell, Presentation, Redistricting Essentials: 2011 Redistricting & Local/Special Districts, LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRARRECORDER/COUNTY CLERK (Jan. 20, 2011) • Leoni, Presentation, Voting Rights Law & Redistricting 2011, ROSE INSTITUTE: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES FACING THE (CAL.)
CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (Dec. 2010)
• Skinnell, Presentation, Redistricting Law 2011: The same . . . but different, NAT’L CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES: FALL FORUM (Dec. 11, 2009)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Presentation, The California Voting Rights Act:
Developing Jurisprudence, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS
ASSOCIATION: ANNUAL 2009 EDUCATION CONFERENCE & TRADE
SHOW (Dec. 4, 2009)
• Leoni & Skinnell, Presentation, The California Voting Rights Act:
Developing Jurisprudence, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: 2009 CITY CLERKS NEW LAW & LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE (Dec. 3, 2009) • Leoni, Presentation, Redistricting Law 2011, ROSE INSTITUTE:
REDISTRICTING, THE 2000 CENSUS, AND YOUR BUDGET (Oct. 15, 2009) (Marguerite served as the co-chair of this conference on local redistricting)
• Skinnell, Presentation, The California Voting Rights Act: Developing Jurisprudence, ROSE INSTITUTE: REDISTRICTING, THE 2000
CENSUS, AND YOUR BUDGET (Oct. 15, 2009)
• Leoni, Presentation, Trends in Redistricting for 2011, CALIFORNIA POLITICAL ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION (Sept. 12, 2009)
• Leoni & Skinnell, The California Voting Rights Act, PUB. L. J. (CAL.
STATE BAR) 15 (Spr. 2009)
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 22 of 27
• Leoni & Skinnell, School Districts & the California Voting Rights Act, CAL. SCHOOLS MAGAZINE 9 (Spr. 2009)
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 23 of 27
BIOGRAPHIES
MARGUERITE MARY LEONI is a partner of the firm, whose practice focuses on legal counseling and civil litigation relating to voting rights and redistricting questions, school district reorganizations, campaign, government and initiative/referendum law, and complex issues pertaining to elections administration. Her practice includes both advising clients on these matters as well as trial and appellate practice.
Marguerite has represented numerous state agencies, municipalities, counties, school districts and other special districts on districting, redistricting, voting rights and electoral matters, including unique expertise in the California Voting Rights Act. She has assisted in all phases of voting rights and redistricting cases including design of redistricting plans, the public hearing process, analysis of proposed alternatives, enactment procedures, referenda, districting and redistricting, preparing and advocating preclearance submissions to the U.S. Department of Justice when required, and defending federal and state court litigation concerning the legality of electoral systems under the federal constitution and Voting Rights Act. Marguerite represented the Administrative Office of the Courts on federal Voting Rights Act issues and electoral questions pertaining to trial court unification in California. She also represented the Florida Senate in designing that state’s 2002 Senate and congressional districts, Voting Rights Act preclearance, and in defending against ensuing state and federal court challenges. She also provided legal counsel to the consultant to Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission for the 2001 redistricting of state legislative and congressional seats.
Marguerite has substantial expertise and experience in administrative preclearance practice in the United States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act.
Marguerite graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, where she earned both Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees. In 1981, she received her law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
She was on the editorial staff of the Hastings Law Journal to which she was selected for academic achievement. She has published articles about Voting Rights Act issues and is a frequent panelist on redistricting and voting rights issues.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 24 of 27
CHRIS SKINNELL is a partner of the firm and its general counsel. His practice focuses on law and civil litigation relating to redistricting and voting rights matters, elections, state and local initiative and referendum law, campaign finance compliance and litigation, lobbying compliance and government ethics, and general constitutional and government law issues.
Chris has extensive experience with redistricting and voting rights matters, from the legal, academic and technical perspectives. He has advised scores of counties, cities, school districts and special districts on compliance with state and federal laws governing redistricting; has counseled many additional public entity clients regarding the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act; has represented public entity defendants in several leading VRA and CVRA cases; and has represented amici curiae in several significant voting rights and redistricting cases before the United States Supreme Court, including: League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015); Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788 (2017); and No. Carolina v. Covington, 138 S. Ct. 974 (2018).
Chris has also published and lectured extensively on voting rights and redistricting, including serving as a guest lecturer on these topics at Claremont McKenna College. Prior to law school, Chris worked as the lead researcher and demographic consultant on numerous redistricting and voting rights projects at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government (where he now is serving his second term on the Board of Governors), and he also served as the technical/GIS consultant on several municipal redistricting projects.
Chris graduated magna cum laude from Claremont McKenna College and received his law degree from the University of Chicago Law School, where he served as the Editor-in-Chief of the University of Chicago Legal Forum.
In 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, Chris was selected as a Northern California Super Lawyer, having previously been named a Rising Star five times, from 2013-2017. He was the subject of a feature article in the 2020 edition of Super Lawyer magazine entitled “The Electioneer.” Only the top 5 percent of all attorneys in California are named as Super Lawyers. They are selected through peer nominations and evaluations along with third-party research.
Sacramento magazine selected Chris for inclusion in its list of Top Lawyers of 2015 and Sonoma Magazine named Chris one of its Lawyers of Distinction in 2021. In both cases, attorneys were selected for inclusion on the list through a survey of local-area attorneys conducted for the magazines by independent third-party research firms.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 25 of 27
SEAN WELCH is a partner of the firm specializing in law and civil litigation in the areas of election, campaign, initiative and referenda, government law, and complex litigation involving highly regulated industries.
Sean has extensive experience guiding clients through the complexities of the initiative and referendum process, from initiative drafting and the formation of ballot measure committees to mounting and defending legal challenges to ballot measures and ballot argument litigation at the state and local level. In addition to successfully litigating multiple cases in this area of law, including the removal of unlawful petitions from the ballot, Sean serves as legal counsel and Treasurer to numerous political committees in favor of or against ballot measures, providing guidance on a wide variety of state and local campaign reporting and disclosure requirements. He is also a trusted resource regarding voter registration issues, balloting, recounts, and election contests, and was a leader of ground teams and litigation strategy for the winning side during the first ever recount of a statewide ballot measure.
Sean also counsels non-profit organizations, corporations, political action committees and individuals on compliance with various federal, state and local election, campaign and government ethics laws, including conflicts of interest.
In addition, he has represented numerous clients in the private and public sectors regarding redistricting, voting rights, and constitutional and government law litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Sean practiced in the San Francisco office of a national law firm where he represented public and corporate clients in matters ranging from public contracts and regulatory issues to antitrust and unfair competition disputes. He also served as an extern clerk to the Hon. Phyllis Hamilton, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 26 of 27
HILARY GIBSON is a partner in the firm’s Bay Area office. She advises clients on a wide variety of election law, government law, and voting rights matters, including litigating complex and novel issues arising in these areas of law.
Ms. Gibson has worked extensively with the firm’s voting rights practice over the past decade. She was integral to Nielsen Merksamer’s historic bailout of Merced County from coverage under Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act and worked with the U.S. Department of Justice to address a variety complex issues related to that process. As a member of the firm’s litigation practice, Ms.
Gibson has assisted in the firm’s representation of public entity clients in numerous voting rights act cases, and in that context, has developed expertise in the legal requirements of both the California and Federal Voting Rights Acts. She has worked closely with leading demographics and statistical consultants, and has experience reviewing, interpreting, and analyzing statistical and demographic data as it pertains to the redistricting process. Ms.
Gibson is also an expert in election law and political reform legislation including conflict of interest laws and regulations.
Ms. Gibson also frequently advises both public agencies and private entities on issues within her area of expertise. She works with public agencies primarily on specialized matters such as redistricting, voting rights, and questions related to measures appearing on the ballot, but also by providing routine guidance on public transparency laws such as the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act.
In 2021, Ms. Gibson served as general counsel to the San Diego County Independent Redistricting Commission.
PGCC 9-7-2022
[07/2022] Page 27 of 27
DAVID LAZARUS is an associate specializing in election law, voting rights matters, ballot measure legal compliance, school district reorganizations and related education law issues, and state and federal campaign, ethics, and lobbying compliance.
David’s representative work includes defending officeholders, political committees, and corporations in ethics and political law enforcement matters before the Federal Election Commission, House Ethics Committee, Office of Congressional Ethics, and various state and local agencies, counseling a technology corporation’s response to a government agency subpoena, developing corporate political activity policies, litigating election law, campaign finance, and voting rights matters, and forming and counseling non-profit organizations on tax and charitable registration laws. David also has extensive experience advising consulting firms, investors, law firms, and non-profit organizations on the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
David has worked on a wide range of voting rights and redistricting matters.
During the 2018 election cycle, he represented committees in multiple state court proceedings to vindicate the rights of disenfranchised voters. He has drafted briefs and worked with expert witnesses in cases challenging restrictive election laws and practices that disproportionately impact older voters, disabled voters, and disenfranchised communities. David has also advised elected officials on the constitutionality of redistricting proposals.
David is a 2014 graduate of Stanford Law School, where he was a member of the Stanford Law & Policy Review. During law school, he worked as a law clerk in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and assisted nonprofits with election law reform initiatives. Following graduation, David clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
Prior to law school, David worked on campaigns and public policy. He served on President Obama’s Presidential Transition Team and then as Senior Advisor to Secretary Tom Vilsack at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. David was also Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, where he worked on the 2008 Farm Bill and helped draft legislation that became the Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353).
PGCC 9-7-2022