21 8. Compliance with Federal, State and Municipal Laws Committee members are representatives of the City and have a duty to represent the City to the best of their ability, and to take those actions that the member believes are for the benefit of the City as a whole.
Members are expected to comply with all applicable federal, state and municipal laws as applied to their Committee responsibilities.
Committee members have the following ethical duties.
▪ Duty of Loyalty:
Committee members have an absolute obligation to put the public’s interest before their own direct or indirect personal interests. Members breach this obligation when they benefit at the public expense. Prohibited benefits can be financial (such as participating in decisions that favorably impact a member’s business, property, or investments), career-related (such as using public office and/or public resources to obtain future employment or political position), or personal such as benefits to family members or close associates. Conflict of interest requires recusal.
▪ Duty of Due Diligence
The duty of care requires that the Committee member competently and faithfully execute the duties of the office. Examples of breach of this duty include failure to attend meetings, failure to investigate, failure to engage in the deliberative process, and failure to vote. ▪ Duty to Avoid Bias
Committee members have a duty to represent all of their constituents fairly. This means that they must overcome any inherent bias that they possess.
Each member shall file on a timely basis all appropriate Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC Form 700) reports which can be obtained online or through the City Clerk. The City’s Conflict of Interest Code can be found at PGMC §2.40.
Each member shall complete required AB 1234 ethics training in a reasonable time upon appointment and repeat this training at least biannually. The City Clerk should be notified upon completion. See Appendix D – Training for more information.
Each member shall also complete sexual harassment prevention training in a reasonable time upon appointment. The state mandate for local agency official sexual harassment prevention training is commonly referred to as “AB 1661” training. A “local agency official” must receive at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training within the first six months of taking office, and every two years thereafter, if the City provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a local agency official of the City. (Cal.Gov.Code § 53237.1.) “Local agency official” means any member of a local agency (which includes a City) legislative body and any elected local agency official. (Cal.Gov.Code § 53237).
PGCC 2-14-24
22 9. Reference Materials
Committees perform best when members are knowledgeable in their area of responsibility. Thus, members are encouraged to become familiar with pertinent materials, which may be found on the Committees’ webpage and departmental webpages.
Examples below.
• Architectural Review Board – General Plan, PGMC Titles 12, 23, 24, Architectural Review Guidelines for Single-Family Residences
• Beautification and Natural Resources Commission – Urban Forestry Standards (2012), Landscape Guidelines and Plant Palette (2016), Urban Greening Plan (2016), City Council Policy 900-3 ‘Acceptance of Art Donations’
• Economic Development Commission - https://pickpg.org/ • Historic Resources Committee – General Plan, PGMC §23.70.070 and 23.76, City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Historic Resources Inventory. Library Board - City Council Policy 200-6 ‘Library Policies’
• Museum Board – Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Operating and Lease Agreement, https://www.pointpinoslighthouse.org/
• Planning Commission – General Plan, PGMC, Local Coastal Plan, Housing Element • Recreation Board – City Council Policy 900-1 ‘Special Events’, City Council Policy 200-3 ‘Municipal Tennis Program’, City Council Policy 100-8 ‘Municipal Softball Park Rules, Regulations & Improvements’
PGCC 2-14-24
23 Appendix A – Teleconference Attendance
If and when a Committee member wishes to attend a meeting by teleconference, then the Committee member should contact, as soon as possible, the City Clerk, Staff Liaison or Council Liaison who can consult with City Attorney if necessary. The rules for teleconference attendance at a Committee meeting by a member of the Committee are set forth in Government Code Section 54953 which specifies three types of teleconference attendance.
1. Traditional Teleconference - Government Code Section 54953 (b) Here are the rules which apply to traditional teleconferencing:
(1) All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall. (2) The teleconferenced meetings shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency.
(3) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(4) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to § 54954.3.
(5) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(6) Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding,
(7) Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. (8) During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction
2. Teleconference Attendance During a Proclaimed State of Emergency - Government Code Section 54953 (e)
See Government Code Section 54953 (e) which describes the rules that apply to teleconference during a proclaimed state of emergency. This is the type of teleconferencing that was utilized during the COVID proclaimed state of emergency.
Some of the key points to note for teleconference attendance at a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency include:
PGCC 2-14-24
24 (1) There must be a proclaimed state of emergency
(2) Notice must be given to the public how to offer public comment remotely in real time (3) If a disruption of the call-in or internet connection, then no further action may be taken on items on the agenda
(4) If a timed public comment period, then public comment must remain open until the timed public comment period has elapsed.
(5) Every 45 days after teleconferencing for the first time, the legislative body must take a vote to allow for continued use of this teleconferencing method. (6) The legislative body is not required to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
3. Teleconference Attendance Authorized by AB 2449 – Government Code Section 54953 (f) Teleconferencing with Section 54953 (f) is permitted when there are “emergency circumstances” or “just cause” which are defined as follows:
(1) “Emergency circumstances” means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
(2) “Just cause” means any of the following:
(A) A childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely. “Child,” “parent,” “grandparent,” “grandchild,” and “sibling” have the same meaning as those terms do in Section 12945.2. (B) A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person. (C) A need related to a physical or mental disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 not otherwise accommodated by subdivision (g).
(D) Travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency.
Some of the key points for teleconference attendance based on AB 2449 include the following:
(1) At least a quorum of the members of the legislative body must participate in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda which location shall be open to the public
(2) The teleconference location where the member is present does not need to be available for attendance by the public.
(3) The legislative body must give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment including comment remotely in real time.
PGCC 2-14-24
25 (4) If a disruption of the call-in or internet connection, then no further action may be taken on items on the agenda
(5) “Just Cause”: The member must notify the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for just cause, including a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. The provisions of this clause shall not be used by any member of the legislative body for more than two meetings per calendar year.
(6) “Emergency Circumstances”: The member must request the legislative body to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances and the legislative body takes action to approve the request. The legislative body shall request a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. A general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words and shall not require the member to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability, or any personal medical information that is already exempt under existing law.
Note: The procedure for the legislative body to take action to approve (or deny) the request would be a motion at the beginning of the by a Committee member to approve (or deny) the request by the member to attend the meeting by teleconference, followed by a second and a vote by the Committee members. If the Motion is denied, the Committee member can still attend the meeting, but only as an observer and should not speak during the meeting.
(7) A member shall make a request to participate remotely at a meeting as soon as possible. (8) The member shall make a separate request for each meeting in which they seek to participate remotely.
(9) The legislative body may take action on a request to participate remotely at the earliest opportunity. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place proposed action on such a request on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body may take action at the beginning of the meeting in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. (10) The member shall publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member's relationship with any such individuals. (11) There is a limitation on teleconferencing with AB 2449 in that such attendance may be no more than three consecutive months or 20 percent of the regular meetings for the local agency within a calendar year, or more than two meetings if the legislative body regularly meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year.
PGCC 2-14-24
26 Appendix B – Motions
The Chair usually initiates a motion by:
1. Inviting a member to make a motion: ‘‘A motion at this time would be in order;”
2. Suggesting a motion: ‘‘A motion would be in order that we approve and forward to the Council the annual report, as drafted;” or
3. Making the motion.
Once recognized, a member makes a motion by preceding the member’s desired approach with the words: “I move ...”. A typical motion might be: “I move that we accept the staff recommendation that...” Often, a member will prefer a variant of the motion on the floor. They can ask the maker and seconder if they are willing to reword their motion. If they agree, the motion is so amended.
If one or both is not amenable to the suggested rewording, a member may propose an amendment or wait until after the vote on the original motion and propose a different motion. Up to three principle motions—the basic motion and two amendments— may be considered at one time – in reverse order:
1. The basic motion. The basic motion proposes a decision for consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a two-member Committee to study this matter in depth.”
2. The motion to amend. A motion to amend proposes to change the basic motion under discussion. A motion to amend might be: “I move that the Committee focus on just two primary options.”
3. The motion to amend an amendment. A motion to amend an amendment proposes a further change to the motions under discussion. A motion to amend the amendment might be: “I move that one of the options for the Committee to analyze be to prohibit murals on wood-sided buildings.”
No further motion to address the substance of the matter is in order. (Incidental or privileges motions, which deal with procedural issues, may still be raised.) Each motion is subject to deliberation.
A motion to amend or to amend an amendment is at times labeled a “substitute motion.” Whether considered as an amendment or a substitute, such motions are handled the same.
When Multiple Motions Are before the Committee
When two or three substantive motions are on the floor (with each having been seconded) at the same time, the first vote resolves the last motion made. If the amendments deal with alternative approaches to the same question, and a majority votes to approve the third motion, the remaining motions are then moot, and action on the agenda item would be complete. If the third motion fails, the Chair then proceeds to consider the second motion.
If an amendment deals with a different aspect of the same matter, then the motions would be considered in turn, in reverse order (second amendment, first amendment, and original motion).
In action minutes, only the final motion or action is recorded.
PGCC 2-14-24
27 Limits to Deliberation
While the basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate, some exceptions limit debate on a motion. Examples of motions that are not debatable include:
• A motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed by simple majority, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. • A motion to recess. This motion, if passed by simple majority, requires the body to immediately take a recess for the time set by the Chair.
• A motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed by simple majority, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. • A motion to table. This motion, if passed by simple majority, places the matter on “hold” and ends discussion of the item. The motion may state a specific time when the item shall return on the agenda, but it need not.
When these, or other incidental or privileged motions are made and seconded, the Chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion.
Most motions require a simple majority; but a few exceptions apply when the body limits a minority from acting on or discussing an item. These motions require a two thirds majority to pass:
• End debate. Members can end debate by “moving the previous question.” • Motion to close nominations. A motion to close nominations limits the right of a minority to nominate officers.
• Motion to suspend rules. This motion is debatable but requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
Division of a Motion
If a motion contains two or more divisible propositions, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition, the Chair may, and upon request of a member shall, divide the same. The Chair’s determination shall be appealable by any member. For example, a motion to approve a project and waive applicant fees is divisible into two separate motions.
Withdrawal of a Motion
A motion may be withdrawn by the maker at any time prior to the vote, without the consent of the member seconding it. Any other member may choose to make the same motion.
Motion to Continue
The Committee may vote to continue items to a subsequent meeting for the following reasons:
▪ The Committee requires additional information during the meeting; ▪ New information or issues come to light during the meeting that need further study; or ▪ Other reasons the Committee deems “appropriate and substantial.” A motion to continue requires a majority vote for approval. This is also known as a motion to postpone and is amendable.
The Committee may continue a submitted application when:
▪ The applicant cannot appear at the meeting and has requested that the item be continued; ▪ The application is revised by the applicant during the meeting; or ▪ The Commission requests that the application be revised.
PGCC 2-14-24
28 ▪ Continuances ordinarily are undertaken with concurrence of the applicant, but concurrence is not required.
Motion to Reconsider
A motion to reconsider a vote is a motion limited in both the time it can be made and the person who can make it. A motion to reconsider an action taken by the Committee may be made on the same day as the meeting in which the motion to be reconsidered was decided, or the next business day if the session is more than one day. The motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side but may be seconded by any member. For example, a person voting in the majority of a 4-3 vote for a motion to approve or deny an item (prevailing side) may make a motion to reconsider. If there is tie vote (3-3 and 1 absence), or if the motion fails (3 in favor, 2 against, 2 absent), then a motion to reconsider is not available as it only applies to actions taken by the Committee.
A motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable, and is not amendable. If the motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered. Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the same motion. If the motion to reconsider passes, the original matter is back before the Committee. The matter may be discussed, debated, and amended as if it were on the floor for the first time.
No member is prevented from making a motion to rescind such action at a subsequent meeting of the Committee, provided the agenda for that meeting includes the proposed action to rescind. Often such motions are used to make policy changes. The motion must be seconded, is debatable, and requires a majority vote.
PGCC 2-14-24
29 Appendix C– Voting
Majority Voting Requirement
The Code requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the total members of the Committee (excluding any non-voting members), on any item, for any action by the Committee, unless otherwise provided.1 (See PGMC §§ 3.02.070 and 3.04.080). For example, the majority of a fully constituted Committee is 4. In a 7-member body, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. If there are 2 vacancies, and the total members are 5, then a majority is 3 members. Therefore, unless a super-majority is required, a simple majority vote determines whether each motion passes or is defeated. Proxy votes for absent members are not allowed.
Tie Votes
A tie vote means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3-3, the motion fails. Tie votes may be reconsidered on motion by any member of the Committee voting aye or nay during the original vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda, any member of the Committee may make a motion to continue the matter to another date. Any continuance for this purpose suspends the running of any time in which action of the Committee is required by law.
Disqualification from Voting; Recusal
Commission members shall disqualify themselves from deliberation and voting on any matter before the Commission, prior to the Commission’s consideration of the matter, when there is a conflict of interest.
A member may also choose not to participate due to personal bias or the appearance of impropriety.
Upon the Chair’s announcement of an item, members must state that they are disqualifying themselves due to a conflict of interest, state the nature of the conflict (e.g., financial), and leave the room until the completion of that item.
If the number of members recusing themselves due to a conflict of interest disrupts the quorum, the “rule of necessity” allows the random selection of the fewest number of conflicted members to vote as is needed to enable a quorum to participate and reach a decision. For example, if 4 out of 7 Committee members are conflicted, the Committee may select one of the conflicted members to vote so as to have a quorum.
Abstentions
Abstentions are discouraged. Members should abstain from voting only due to lack of participation in an evidentiary proceeding before the Committee and their inability to review the record. In that instance, members will be recorded as absent for that item.
A member present for consideration of a motion who opposes the motion must vote against it. In the event of an abstention the abstainer in effect “consents” that a majority of the quorum of the members present may act for them. Thus, a member who abstains (for any reason other than lack of opportunity to review the record) is deemed to acquiesce in the action taken by the majority of members who voted.
For example, on a 7-member Committee, if the vote is 3 in favor, 2 against, with 1 absence and 1 abstention, the motion is approved, since a quorum was present, and a majority of the total 1 In certain circumstances, supermajority votes (majority + 1) are required: certain actions of Council, e.g., an urgency ordinance; zoning amendments by the Planning Commission.
PGCC 2-14-24
30 membership is judged to have voted in favor. A 3-3 vote with one abstention means the motion fails as there is no majority.
Members who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual members have stated in advance that they will not be voting.
Voting Methods. When a motion is not likely to be opposed, the Chair says, “If there is no objection, …”.
The members show their agreement, called “general consent,” by their silence. If a member says, “I object,” the item is put to a vote. Most votes shall be by voice vote. The Chair asks those in favor to say, “Aye,” and those opposed to say “No.” If the outcome is unclear by voice, a hand vote may be taken.
Any member may move for an exact count. In some cases, a roll call vote is required, with each member answering “yes” or “no” as his or her name is called. The order of voting for roll call votes shall be random.
Recording of Votes. The results of the vote shall be announced immediately following the action as shown in the following example: “The motion passed 5-2, Brown and Smith voting no.” The minutes of the Committee’s proceedings shall show the vote of each member, including whether they were absent or failed to vote on a matter considered. For example,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Members may change their votes up to the time the vote is finally announced. After that, members may only change with permission of the Committee, which may be given by general consent; that is, by no member’s objecting when the Chair inquires if anyone objects. If an objection is made, a motion may be made to grant the permission, which is debatable.
PGCC 2-14-24
31 Appendix D – Training
Mandatory Ethics Training AB 1234
AB 1234, passed in 2014, codified at Government Code § 53235, requires many California state and local officials and employees to complete mandatory ethics training. It states:
(a) (1) If a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.
(2) All local agency officials who are members of the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article, whether or not any member receives any type of compensation, salary, or stipend or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties. (b) Each local agency official shall receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to the official’s public service every two years. (c) If an entity develops curricula to satisfy the requirements of this §, then the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorney General shall be consulted regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the proposed course content. When reviewing any proposed course content, the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorney General shall not preclude an entity from also including local ethics policies in the curricula.
(d) A local agency or an association of local agencies may offer one or more training courses, or sets of self-study materials with tests, to meet the requirements of this §. These courses may be taken at home, in-person, or online.
(e) A provider of training courses to meet the requirements of this article shall provide participants with proof of participation to meet the requirements of § 53235.2. (f) A local agency shall provide information on training available to meet the requirements of this article to its local officials at least once annually.
AB 1234 applies to “members of a legislative body,” which is defined as in the Brown Act, Government Code § 54952. It thus applies to members appointed to city boards and commissions.
AB 1234 does not specify a time period within which an official must take and complete the training.
Where, as here, a statute does not impose a specific time requirement, the statute is deemed to require compliance within a “reasonable” time.
PGCC 2-14-24
Agenda No. 12 D
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager Robert Perrault, Special Counsel Jenica Maldonado MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: Codifying Council Member Inquiry Authority
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss draft Ordinance regarding Ordinance Codifying Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter.
1. Discuss related draft Council Policy Establishing Procedures for Council Members to Make an Inquiry Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.110.
2. Provide direction to City Attorney to finalize draft Ordinance and draft Policy and return to City Council for first reading on Ordinance.
3. 4. Other action as related to this agenda item.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2023, the City Council discussed a proposed ordinance to codify the Council’s inquiry authority, as prescribed under the City Charter, Article 21. At that meeting, the Council took action to make certain modifications to the draft ordinance and directing the City Manager to prepare a related Council Policy.
The City Manager, in consultation with Department Directors and the City Attorney’s Office, has prepared a proposed Council Policy and proposed related revisions to the Ordinance itself.
Attachment 1 to this Agenda Report is a “redline” of the draft ordinance. The “redline” is a comparison of the version of the ordinance considered by Council on December 6, 2023 and the revised proposed ordinance. Changes are reflected in strike-out (i.e., deletions of language from the December 6 version) and underline (i.e., additions to the language in the December 6 version).
Attachment 2 to the Agenda Report is a “clean” version of the draft ordinance, which reflects the City Manager’s proposed revisions for Council’s consideration. These proposed changes are summarized below.
PROPOSED REVISED ORDINANCE
The ordinance offers specific definitions for the following terms: “administrative service,” “inquiry,” PGCC 2-14-24
The ordinance offers specific definitions for the following terms: “administrative service,” “inquiry,” and “order.” (Section 2.04.110, subdivisions (a)(1)-(3).) The ordinance defines the “administrative service” as “all Department Directors and the Chief of Police.” The definition further provides that, “[a]ny inquiries regarding fire-related services shall be directed to the City.
The ordinance defines “inquiry” as “a specific question from a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service which can be answered by furnishing information available from, or by providing, existing City records to the extent permitted by law, and which does not require a member of the administrative service to discuss or express an opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council, individual Council member(s), or the City Manager.” The ordinance defines “orders” as “commands, directions, or instructions to do something or not do something by a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service, with or without an expectation by the member of Council that the member of the administrative service will comply.” The ordinance provides that Council members are entitled to access public records on the same basis as any other person and that inquiries are subject to the provisions of the California Public Records Act (CPRA). (Section 2.04.110, subdivision (c).)
The ordinance provides that members of the administrative service may respond to inquiries during normal business hours (excluding emergencies) and in a manner consistent with the CPRA. It further provides that, if a Council member does not receive a response to an inquiry, that nothing in this Code Section shall prevent them from communicating with the City Manager directly about the inquiry or from Council addressing the issue as a body. (Section 2.04.110, subdivision (e).) The ordinance provides that the Council may make orders of the City Manager to furnish information or provide existing City records to the extent permitted by law, or may direct the City Manager to create new records. It further provides that individual Council members may not make such orders. (Section
2.04.110, subdivision (f).)
The ordinance provides that a Council member’s ability to make an inquiry under Article 21 is limited to inquiries made in their official capacity as an elected official. The ordinance recognizes that a Council member may still contact the City in the normal course of business in their private capacity and does not intend to infringe upon such right.
The ordinance provides that the City Manager and members of the administrative service are protected from retaliation that may result from an inquiry to the extent permitted by State law.
The ordinance authorizes Council to adopt a related City policy, to the extent such policy is consistent with the City Charter, Pacific Grove Municipal Code, the City Charter, and state and federal law.
PROPOSED POLICY
Attachment 3 is a draft Council Policy entitled, “Council Policy Establishing Procedures for Council Members to Make an Inquiry Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.110”.
The Policy recognizes the definitions of “administrative service” and “inquiry,” as defined in the Code, for ease of reference. To provide further clarification regarding the meaning of inquiry that is consistent with the definition itself, the Policy recognizes “inquiries” to be “requests for information that can be provided from non-privileged existing City records or existing information.” The Policy recognizes PGCC 2-14-24
“non-privileged” to mean a record that is not recognized as privileged or confidential by law and designates the City Attorney or their designee to determine whether a record is privileged or confidential.
The Policy outlines the following five operational considerations.
First, an inquiry shall be directed to any member of the administrative service in writing by email. The City Manager shall be copied. Inquiries may be responded to within normal business hours (absent an emergency) and in a manner consistent with the Municipal Code and CPRA.
Second, when an administrative service member receives an inquiry, they may provide a time estimate for the return of requested information. Alternatively, they may request that the City Manager respond to the Council member on their behalf.
If the member of the administrative service decides to respond to the inquiry and the inquiry seeks an existing City record that is disclosable under the CPRA, then the timeline will be consistent with the CPRA.
If the member of the administrative service decides to respond to the inquiry and the inquiry seeks information only, then staff shall respond within a reasonable amount of time consistent with staff work loads. An inquiry that seeks only information, as distinguishable from an inquiry that seeks records, can be responded to by conveying information verbally or by a short email response.
Third, if a member of the administrative service decides not to respond to an inquiry, they may notify the Council member directly or request the City Manager do so on their behalf.
Fourth, if a Council member does not receive the information they seek in response to an inquiry, then they may cause the matter to be agendized for consideration by the full Council.
Fifth, the Policy recognizes that the City Manager maintains the discretion to direct or order any City employee to perform a job duty or function that may relate to an inquiry made by a Council member under Section 2.04.110 of the Municipal Code.
OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the Ordinance.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
1-Redline of Ordinance, comparing December 6 2023 and February 7, 2024 2-Proposed Revised Ordinance
3-Proposed Policy
PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 1
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43547131.1
REDLINE OF DRAFT ORDINANCE, COMPARING DECEMBER 6, 2023 VERSION AND FEBRUARY 7, 2024 VERSION
To ease review, we identify the deletions and additions made to the December 6, 2023 version.
Deletions are reflected in strike-out. Additions are reflected in underline.
In addition the edits reflected below, the title of the ordinance has been revised from “An Ordinance of the City of Pacific Grove Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Codifying the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter” to “An Ordinance of the City of Pacific Grove Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter.”
The proposed revisions are as follows:
Section 2.04.110 Inquiry
(a) The following definitions shall be used to interpret Article 21 of the City Charter and shall control for the purposes of this Section.
(1) “tThe administrative service” means all officers and employees of the City that are under the City Manager’s supervision and control. Department Directors and the Chief of Police. Any inquiries regarding fire-related services shall be directed to the City Manager.
(2) “i Inquiry” means a specific question from a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service which can be answered by furnishing information available from, or by providing, existing City records to the extent permitted by law, and which does not require a member of the administrative service to discuss or express an opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council, individual Council member(s), or the City Manager. (3) “orders” means command, direction, or instruction to do something or not do something by a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service, with or without an expectation by the member of Council that the member of the administrative service will comply.
(b) Pursuant to Article 21 of the City Charter, the Council and its members are authorized to make inquiries to anyone in the administrative service of the City. except for the purpose of inquiry the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.
(c) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), members of Council are PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 1
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43547131.1
entitled to access public records on the same basis as any other person. A response to an inquiry which requests a City record shall be subject to the provisions of the CPRA in regard to records to be produced and timelines for production. When Council and its members are authorized to access a City record, as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the City shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which record or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available.
(d) An inquiry that communicates a grievance against the government of the City is protected by the First Amendment.
(e) Members of the administrative service are not required, as a term or condition of employment, to respond to an inquiry made by a council member or the Council acting as a body.Thislimitation does not apply to ordersmade by theCityManagerto amember of the administrative service concerning an inquiry from a council member or the Council acting as a body.
(f)(e) Inquires may respond to during normal business hours (excluding emergencies) in a manner consistent with the CPRA. If a council member does not receive a response to an inquiry from a member of the administrative service, nothing in this provision shall prevent the council member from communicating with the City Manager concerning the inquiry, or from the Council, acting as a body during a duly convened public meeting, to direct the City Manager to provide the outstanding information in response to the inquiry.
(g) (f) The City Council, acting as a body during a duly convened public meeting, may order the City Manager to furnish information or provide City records to the extent permitted by law, or direct the City Manager to create City records with the requested information to the extent permitted by law. Individual Council members may not make such orders of the City Manager.
(g) The authority of a Council member to make inquiries under Article 21 of the Charter is limited to inquiries made in their official capacity as an elected official.
Nothing in this Section prohibits a Council member from contacting the City in the normal course of business in their private capacity.
(h) If a member of the administrative service declines to provide information in response to an inquiry, then the council member may request that the City Attorney or a designee of the City Attorney review the determination. (i) (h) The City Manager and members of the administrative service are protected from retaliation that may result from an inquiry from a Council member to the extent provided under California law.
PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 1
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43547131.1
(i) The City Council may adopt a council policy for submitting inquiries to members of the administrative service provided such policy does not conflict or interfere with (1) this Section the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, (2) the City Charter, (3) the California Public Records Act, or (4) the First Amendment.
PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 2
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43497550.5
ORDINANCE NO. 2024 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ADDING
SECTION 2.04.110 TO THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO CODIFY THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CITY CHARTER
FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove is a charter city organized under the constitution of the State of California.
2. Pacific Grove became a charter city on April 22, 1927. New Charters were adopted in 1955, 1969, and 1974.
3. The Pacific Grove City Charter, in Article 21, currently provides as follows: “Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall dictate or attempt to dictate, either directly or indirectly, the appointment of any person to office or employment by the City Manager, or in any manner interfere with the City Manager or prevent the City Manager from exercising his or her own judgment in the appointment of officers and employees in the administrative service. Except for the purpose of inquiry the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.”
4. The language of Article 21 has continuously appeared in the City Charter since the City’s first adopted Charter in 1927.
5. Article 21 allows direct contact with the administrative service for the purpose of inquiry.
The purpose of Article 21 is to define the lines of authority within city government, not to prohibit protected speech. Interpreting Article 21 to prohibit "orders" to members of the administrative service is a bright line consistent with the purpose of Article 21 and the First Amendment. “Council members “‘are entitled to speak as they please on matters vital to them; errors in judgment ... may be exposed, of course, but not through punishment for contempt for the expression.’” (See Levy v.
City of Santa Monica (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1262, quoting Wood v. Georgia (1962) 370 U.S. 375, 389.)
6. Council members have First Amendment protection when they comment individually, or respond to inquiries from the public, about the City's actions. Under the First Amendment, “‘legislators “are given the widest latitude to express their views” and there are no “stricter ‘free speech’ standards on [them] than on the general public.’” (See Levy v. City of Santa Monica (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261, quoting Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 76, 80.)
PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 2
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43497550.5
7. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
8. The California Public Records Act, in Government Code Section 7921.305(a), currently provides as follows: “Notwithstanding the definition of ‘member of the public’ in Section 7920.515, an elected member or officer of any state or local agency is entitled to access to public records of that agency on the same basis as any other person. Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of elected members or officers to access public records permitted by law in the administration of their duties.”
9. The California Public Records Act, in Government Code Section 7921.310, currently provides as follows: “Notwithstanding Section 7921.305 or any other provision of law, when the members of a legislative body of a local agency are authorized to access a writing of the body or of the agency as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the local agency… shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which writing or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available.”
10. The Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), Title 2, Chapter 2.04 sets forth rules regarding Administration and City Government and addresses processes related to the City Council. The PGMC does not include a section addressing the inquiry authority of Council members, as provided under Article 21 of the City Charter.
11. Amending the Municipal Code to clarify the meaning of Article 21 and to authorize preparation of a city council policy establishing procedures and guidelines for submitting inquiries to members of the City’s administrative service is consistent with the City Charter, the California Public Records Act, the First Amendment, and related published case law; assists City elected officials in conducting oversight of the City Manager and City operations; and promotes clarity regarding Pacific Grove’s Council-Manager form of city government, as established under the City Charter.
12. This ordinance does not constitute a Project as that term is defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Facts.
The facts set forth above are true and correct and are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Add Section 2.04.110 PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 2
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43497550.5
The following Section shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code:
Section 2.04.110 Inquiry
(a) The following definitions shall be used to interpret Article 21 of the City Charter and shall control for the purposes of this Section.
(1) “The administrative service” means all Department Directors and the Chief of Police. Any inquiries regarding fire-related services shall be directed to the City Manager.
(2) “Inquiry” means a specific question from a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service which can be answered by furnishing information available from, or by providing, existing City records to the extent permitted by law, and which does not require a member of the administrative service to discuss or express an opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council, individual Council member(s), or the City Manager. (3) “Orders” means commands, directions, or instructions to do something or not do something by a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service, with or without an expectation by the member of Council that the member of the administrative service will comply.
(b) Pursuant to Article 21 of the City Charter, except for the purpose of inquiry the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. (c) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), members of Council are entitled to access public records on the same basis as any other person. A response to an inquiry which requests a City record shall be subject to the provisions of the CPRA in regard to records to be produced and timelines for production. When Council and its members are authorized to access a City record, as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the City shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which record or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available. (d) An inquiry that communicates a grievance against the government of the City is protected by the First Amendment.
(e) Inquires may respond to during normal business hours (excluding emergencies) in a manner consistent with the CPRA. If a council member does not receive a response to an inquiry from a member of the administrative service, nothing in this Code Section shall prevent the council member from communicating with the City Manager concerning the inquiry, or from the Council, acting as a body during a duly convened PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 2
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43497550.5
public meeting, to direct the City Manager to provide the outstanding information in response to the inquiry.
(f) The Council, acting as a body during a duly convened public meeting, may order the City Manager to furnish information or provide existing City records to the extent permitted by law, or direct the City Manager to create City records with the requested information to the extent permitted by law. Individual Council members may not make such orders of the City Manager.
(g) The authority of a Council member to make inquiries under Article 21 of the Charter is limited to inquiries made in their official capacity as an elected official.
Nothing in this Section prohibits a Council member from contacting the City in the normal course of business in their private capacity.
(h) The City Manager and members of the administrative service are protected from retaliation that may result from an inquiry from a Council member to the extent provided under California law.
(i) The City Council may adopt a council policy for submitting inquiries to members of the administrative service provided such policy does not conflict or interfere with (1) the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, (2) the City Charter, (3) the California Public Records Act, or (4) the First Amendment, or any other local, state, or federal law.
PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 3
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43495132.4
[DRAFT] COUNCIL POLICY ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MAKE AN INQUIRY PURSUANT TO PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.04.110 Purpose:
Article 21 of the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) Charter provides the Council with the ability of making inquiries regarding City-related business and activities of those employees in the administrative service of the City. The purpose of this policy is to provide practical guidance for Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.110 regarding “Inquiry Authority” and to ensure that Council members have the information needed by the Council to collectively make decisions. This policy aligns with the Council/ Manager form of government whereby the Council establishes policy and management implements the Council policy.
Administrative Service
Section 2.04.110, subdivision (a)(1) of the City Municipal Code defines the term “administrative service” as City Department Directors and Chief of Police and directs council members to make fire servicerelated inquiries to the City Manager.
Meaning of Inquiry
Section 2.04.110, subdivision (a)(2) of the City Municipal Code defines an inquiry as “a specific question from a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service which can be answered by furnishing information available from, or by providing, existing City records to the extent permitted by law, and which does not require a member of the administrative service to discuss or express an opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council, individual Council members(s), or the City Manager.”
Inquiries are requests for information that can be provided from non-privileged existing City records or existing information.
Non-privileged means a record that is not recognized as privileged or otherwise confidential by law. It is up to the City Attorney or their designee to determine whether a City record is privileged or otherwise confidential by law.
Procedure for Inquiry
1. An inquiry shall be directed to any member of the administrative service in writing by email with a copy to the City Manager. Inquiries may be responded to within normal business hours (with the exception of emergency situations) in a manner otherwise consistent with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
2. Upon receipt of an inquiry, the member of the administrative service may provide the requesting Council member with a time estimate for the return of the requested information or may request that the City Manager respond to the inquiry on their behalf.
PGCC 2-14-24
ATTACHMENT 3
Inquiry Ordinance
February 7, 2024
43495132.4
a. To the extent a member of the administrative service decides to respond to an inquiry and the inquiry seeks an existing City record that is properly disclosable under the CPRA, the timeline for a response will be consistent with the CPRA. b. To the extent a member of the administrative service decides to respond to an inquiry and the inquiry seeks information that can be conveyed verbally or by a short email response and not an existing City record, it shall be responded to within a reasonable amount of time consistent with staff workloads. Staff may need to balance workloads, timelines, and resources, with lengthy, labor-intensive requests.
3. If the member of the administrative service decides not to provide the requested information, then they may inform the Council member or inform the City Manager who will inform the Council member.
4. If a Council member does not receive the information requested, the Council member may cause the subject of their inquiry to be agendized for discussion by the full Council for their consideration in a manner consistent with the Brown Act, the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, and City policies. The Council may, in its discretion, direct the City Manager to provide said information.
5. The City Manager maintains the discretion to direct or order a member of the administrative service or any other City employee to perform a job duty or function relating to an inquiry from a Council member made under Section 2.04.110 of the Municipal Code or this policy.
PGCC 2-14-24
Agenda No. 12 E
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmembers Luke Coletti, Lori McDonnell: Daniel Gho PW Director, Deputy CM
MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: Recommendations from Parklet Subcommittee
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive Report describing the design of the proposed curb extension and expanded sidewalk dining project prepared by the Parklet Subcommittee and City staff, and
1. Direct staff to complete the remaining items necessary to finalize the project and bring back a final package to the City Council for approval prior to release of a Request for Proposals, and
2. Direct staff to prepare a Parklet and Sidewalk Dining Program Manual, to be adopted by Council Resolution, that thoroughly describes the program, including but not limited to, permitting, types of use, design standards, safety standards, amenities, and compliance and enforcement measures.
3. 4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
In June of 2020, the City Council ratified emergency measures taken by the City Manager to streamline the processes through which businesses could offer outside dining. By August 1, 2020, approximately 11 restaurants were operating parklets on city property under the temporary rules established by the local emergency. In 2021 and 2022, the City Council adopted an ordinance with one-year sunset provisions that clarified the scope and effect of the temporary Parklet Program and Outside Dining rules.
At its March 22, 2023, meeting the City Council adopted Ord. 23-004, which expands the encroachment permit process to allow parklets in the public right-of-way. Ord. 23-004 includes the following definition:
15.01.010 (h) “Parklet” means the conversion of one or more parking spaces, that may vary according to the site, context, and desired character of the installation, and are subject to the review and approval of the City Public Works Director or designee under the Parklet Program adopted by City Council Resolution.
With the adoption of Ord. 23-004 parklets are now authorized through an annual temporary encroachment permit and are subject to the provisions of the City’s Parklet Program. Issuing an annual encroachment permit allows the parklets to remain temporary and revocable if the Parklet Guidelines conditions are not met. When adopting Ord. 23-004 Council also formed a subcommittee consisting of PGCC 2-14-24
conditions are not met. When adopting Ord. 23-004 Council also formed a subcommittee consisting of Councilmembers Beck, Coletti and McDonnell. Councilmember Beck has recently recused herself.
At its June 21, 2023, meeting the City Council discussed the Subcommittee’s status report and proposal to address the numerous inquiries and concerns related to the three parklets at Lighthouse Ave. and Fountain. With increased visibility and safety in mind, the subcommittee recommends extending the sidewalk where parklets currently exist. Curb extensions provide pedestrians with greater visibility and also shorten crossing distances, further enhancing safety. The City Council voted to approve the subcommittee recommendations:
1. Direct City staff to proceed with the design of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain.
2. Direct the City Traffic Engineer, City Attorney, and other City staff to prepare a report of relevant safety standards and compliance measures necessary for new and existing parklets. This will include a restriping plan for a) parking spaces adjacent to new and existing parklets, and b) the right-of-way.
3. Extend the term of the City Council Parklet Subcommittee to March 1, 2024.
Since then the subcommittee has worked with Staff to prepare a rendering, site plan, and analysis of the expanded sidewalk dining areas that will replace the current parklets (Attachment 1). The rendering and site plan shows the new curb extension along with the three proposed expanded sidewalk dining areas.
An analysis of the current and proposed conditions provides the net change in area for each business.
Due to building width, and required access to second-floor apartments, the available square footage will vary. However, the depth of the enclosed sidewalk dining areas is uniform at 18 feet. The total sidewalk depth will be 26 feet from the face of the building to the face of the extended curb, with 18 feet of space reserved for outdoor dining and 8 feet for pedestrian travel. The dining space will be enclosed by fencing of matching style where the restaurateur can determine the configuration of their tables.
In addition to the rendering and site plan, City staff has been actively working on engineered plans.
There are two viable options the City can take:
1. Preferred Configuration (Attachment 2)
2. Alternative Configuration (Attachment 3)
Preferred Configuration:
The preferred configuration of the engineered plans for the sidewalk extension is included as Attachment 2. This option allows proper alignment with the crosswalks along with vehicle and pedestrian movements, a bulb out will also have to be created on the Southeast side of Lighthouse and Fountain Avenue. This would include the reconstruction of the Fountain Avenue intersection to ensure proper drainage and slope.
Alternative Configuration:
There is an alternative option, that still creates a bulb out on the Southeast side of Lighthouse and Fountain Avenue, but this option will not reconfigure the Fountain Ave Intersection, which will keep the stormwater infrastructure in its current location. Unfortunately, this option will affect stormwater flows due to improper slopes. This alternative is not as safe for pedestrians but is included for reference as Attachment 3.
PGCC 2-14-24
New “Daylighting” Law:
Recent State law (AB-413) prohibits cars and trucks from stopping, standing, or parking within 20 feet of the approach side of crosswalks. By definition, parklets occupy parking spaces. Therefore, any parklet within this 20-foot area would have to be removed. This includes the Victorian Corner parklet.
Stakeholder Feedback:
The subcommittee met twice with the affected business and property owners (stakeholders). The stakeholder group consists of three restaurant operators and two property owners. Only one member of the group, a restaurant operator and tenant, had strong objections. Their objection is primarily focused on the net loss of 76 sq-ft (see Attachment 1). However, it should be noted that 72 sq-ft (95%) of this net loss is due to the required access path to the second-floor apartment. It might be possible to gain a few extra square feet of dining space by reducing the sidewalk width from 8 feet to 7 feet at the transition point of the curb extension. All remaining members of the stakeholder group support the expanded sidewalk dining concept and removal of the existing parklets. The consensus of the stakeholder group is to "just build it.” There was also general agreement that construction should occur in the month of June (2024), but no later.
Next Steps:
If the City Council decides to move forward with the proposed project, Council will need to provide direction on the following items in order for staff to finalize a bid package:
1. Removal of existing parklets: The subcommittee is recommending that the removal of the existing parklets be included in the construction contract.
2. Installation of new fencing: The subcommittee is recommending that fencing be included in the construction contract. Details need to be obtained for inclusion into the bid package.
Staff will continue issuing annual permits for the existing parklets. It is anticipated that Staff will also permit new parklets through the encroachment permit process as specified in Title 15 of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff has received a request for a new parklet at the corner of Lighthouse Ave and 15th. This highlights the need to prepare and adopt a Parklet and Sidewalk Dining Program Manual that thoroughly describes the “Parklet Program” (see Recommendation #3).
OPTIONS
Provide alternate direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
As part of the FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the City Council has allocated $50,000 for the design and engineering of the sidewalk extension. At the time of this writing, $13,329 has been expended, but there are a few pending invoices to account for engineering time and development of the parklet rendering. As part of the engineering of the sidewalk extension, a construction estimate has been developed and is as follows.
Preferred Configuration: Sidewalk extension with
proper drainage and configuration (Attachment 2)
$251,250
Alternative Configuration (Attachment 3) $158,100
PGCC 2-14-24
These estimates are for the sidewalk extension, drainage, and intersection construction. These estimates do not include any of the outstanding items noted in this report that need to be determined prior to solicitation of bids. Additionally, these estimates do not include tree material, lighting, and other decorative features.
The Council would also need to approve additional funding (via a budget amendment or through the FY24/25 CIP process) to allow the project to proceed.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
1. Rendering, site plan, and analysis of the expanded sidewalk dining areas
2. Engineered plans - Preferred Configuration
3. Engineered plans - Alternative Configuration
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
Current and Proposed Areas with Net Change
Parklet Area Outside Dining Area Total Area
Wildfish
241 ft2 115 ft2 356 ft2
0 ft2 280 ft2 280 ft2
-76 ft2
Rudolfo’s
221 ft2 148 ft2 369 ft2
0 ft2 360 ft2 360 ft2
-9 ft2
Victorian Corner
240 ft2 100 ft2 340 ft2
0 ft2 350 ft2 350 ft2
+10 ft2
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
Agenda No. 12 F
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: David Avenue Sidewalk Project
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report
Direct staff to proceed with phasing the installation of sidewalks on the school side of David Avenue
2. 3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of the FY22/23 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) the City Council approved the David Avenue Sidewalk Project. The original project budget was $360,000 derived from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. During the budget process, at their July 13, 2023 meeting, the Council opted to reallocate $278,000 of ARPA funds (allocated initially to the Skate Park and Purple Pipe Projects) to the David Avenue Sidewalk project. This increased the project budget from $360,000 to $638,000.
The purpose of this multi-year project is to install sidewalks and enhance pedestrian safety on David Avenue between Patterson Lane and Montecito Avenue. David Avenue serves as one of the City’s major arterials. This segment is heavily trafficked and provides access to the Del Monte Neighborhood, local schools, and commercial areas.
The City Engineer has performed preliminary engineering to provide the Council with a high-level understanding of the challenges and potential costs associated with installing sidewalks on either side of David Avenue. The cost and challenges associated with each option are provided at a high level below.
Attachment 1 provides the preliminary estimates in visual form.
Ultimately, City Staff is recommending the Council provide direction to proceed with the installation of sidewalks on the school side of David Avenue. Although this option is more costly, staff believes this will present the least construction and long-term maintenance challenges and be the ideal option for pedestrian safety.
PGCC 2-14-24
Estimated Costs
Road Segment Estimated Cost
David Avenue (Residential Side) $1,290,000
David Avenue (School Side) $1,935,000
Infrastructure Challenges:
Challenges associated with installing sidewalks on the residential side of David Avenue:
This side of David Ave has several driveway approaches which would require the installation of driveway aprons, and present greater opportunities for car/pedestrian conflicts.
This option would require the construction of retaining walls at several properties to ensure proper sidewalk construction and continued sidewalk clearance/access.
This option will impact residential parking on David between Clark Lane and Montecito Avenue.
Currently, residents park in the public right of way where a sidewalk would be placed.
Installation of sidewalks would displace these informal parking areas. The street width is not sufficient to allow for both a sidewalk and parallel street parking and, as a result, there would be a loss in parking.
Challenges associated with installing sidewalks on the school side of David Avenue:
The largest challenge and cost associated with the installation of a sidewalk on the school side of David Avenue is the reconfiguration and construction of stormwater infrastructure. This will require replacing the existing swale drainage ditch (between Clark Lane and Monetcito Avenue) with formal underground stormwater infrastructure to allow for sidewalk placement.
This is largely why the cost of installation of a sidewalk on this section of roadway is more costly.
This option also requires tree removal on the section of David between Montecito and Buena Vista Avenues.
The attachment provides the engineer's construction estimates per block, alongside a listing of infrastructure improvements required to facilitate sidewalk installation.
OPTIONS
Direct staff to proceed with phasing the installation of sidewalks on the school side of David Avenue
1. Direct staff to proceed with phasing the installation of sidewalks on the residential side David Avenue
2. 3. Provide alternative direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Despite the option selected, there is not sufficient funding to allow for the construction of sidewalks on the full length of David Avenue between Patterson Lane and Montecito Avenue. The project can be phased to allow for some construction in the current fiscal year with the allocated project budget.
If the Council provides direction to proceed with the staff recommendation, installation of sidewalks on the school side of David Ave, it is anticipated that construction of improvements could occur between Patterson and Clark Lanes, and potentially elements of the improvements on Clark Lane and Buena Vista Avenue.
Based on the direction provided by the Council, staff will regroup with the City Engineer to best PGCC 2-14-24
develop a phased construction plan to most efficiently bid the project and harness existing funding.
Staff can include a request for additional funding as an element of the FY24/25 CIP.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Engineer's Concept & Estimated Construction Costs
PGCC 2-14-24
PGCC 2-14-24
Agenda No. 12 G
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: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: Skatepark Project – City Hall Parking Lot
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report and provide direction.
2. Alternative, take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
During the Council meeting held on November 15, 2023, the Council received a status report and recommendation from Staff. Additionally, the Council received communication from the Recreation Board. The Recreation Board urged the Council to move forward with the location of a Skatepark on a trial basis at one of two locations: (1) City Hall Employee Parking lot or (2) Northwest corner of the Public Works Corporation Yard. Alternative locations for the Skatepark have been the subject of previous reports and information, linked here. In the past the evaluation of alternative sites did not meet with success. The Recreation Board felt that the construction of the Skatepark for a trial period at one of the sites recommended by the Board would result in a consensus as to where the Skatepark should be ultimately located.
Following the Council’s discussion on the matter The Council directed staff to further evaluate the location of skatepark in the Employee Parking lot adjacent to the Youth Center. Specifically, the Council directed staff to complete the following tasks:
1. Discuss a temporary skatepark with the City’s insurance representatives: California Joint Powers Authority.
2. Evaluate the Surface for the location of a skatepark.
3. Develop potential project costs.
4. Evaluate Displacement of Employee Parking
5. Prepare a Project description to include:
a. Days and hours of operations
b. Opening and closing
c. Users
d. Signage
e. Measurement of success
6. Reach out to neighbors and perform public outreach.
PGCC 2-14-24
6. Reach out to neighbors and perform public outreach.
The purpose of this staff report is to update the Council on the completed tasks and to seek additional direction from the Council.
Discuss a temp skatepark with California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA):
City staff has discussed the concept of a temporary skatepark on City property with the CJPIA. The City cannot purchase equipment and install it. The CJPIA supports the project in concept, but the materials, purchase, and installation must be performed by a company that specializes in temporary skateparks or above ground parks. The company must provide the appropriate equipment based on an approved design and then install the equipment to specifications. Once installed the equipment remains in place throughout the duration of the trail period.
Evaluate the surface:
The city reached out to American Ramp Company to seek their advice and expertise on the purchase and installation of a temporary skate park. Public Works discussed the location and sent them pictures of the space, the surface and square footage (4,300 sq ft) available for a park. Upon receipt of the pictures, it was determined that the surface is not suitable for skateboards, primarily due to the slope and coarseness of the asphalt. Since the asphalt is not suitable resurfacing would be recommended. It is anticipated that resurfacing would cost approximately $45,000 - $50,000.
City Hall Employee Park Lot
The City Hall Employee lot is heavily used, that is almost always at full capacity during business hours. This proposal would result in eliminating 12 of the available parking spaces and potentially rendering an additional 4 spots inaccessible. This proposal would also result in the removal of 2 ADA parking spots, half of the ADA parking that services the Youth Center and City Hall facilities.
Moreover, the proposal would block a complete exit to the parking lot, causing potential access issues as the lot would only be accessible only from 17th Street.
Parking is already a present challenge on site for employees as there are not sufficient spaces in the lot as is. Eliminating 12- 16, spots would result in displaced employee parking. Employees would be forced to park on the road in spots currently used for residents and patrons of local businesses.
Project Costs:
American Ramp Company recommends installation of mini ramps, a grind bar and a grind box.
Attachment 1 shows renderings of the equipment along with a quote for the purchase and set up of the equipment. For the 3 pieces of equipment the quote is $55,127.
The resurfacing of the lot and the purchase of the equipment would be subject to formal contractual procedures Per Article III. Purchases in Amounts over the Purchasing Agent’s Authorization. This would require a Request for Proposal (RFP) to be prepared and issued for the equipment and also an RFP for the resurfacing would need to be issued. The City Engineer would need to prepare engineered plans and specifications for the resurfacing.
Estimated Budget:
a. Resurfacing- $50,000
b. Equipment- $55,127
c. Design- $15,769
d. Contingency $12,000
Total $132, 896
PGCC 2-14-24
Next steps in the process will be to perform public outreach and prepare a project description if the City Council opts to continue with the process. The following items will need to be identified within a project description:
a. Days and hours of operations
b. Opening and closing
c. Users: Multi Wheel
d. Signage
e. Security: Fencing & lighting
f. Measurement of success for 90 trial period
OPTIONS
1. Direct Staff to continue with the project planning.
2. Or Provide staff with additional direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Originally, the Skatepark project was to be funded with ARPA funds in the amount of $158,000 and was to be a multi-year project. The ARPA funding was removed and applied to the David Avenue Sidewalk Project which is expected to be under construction later this fiscal year. Should the Council want to move forward with the Skatepark, funding would need to be considered as a new CIP project in FY 24-25.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
Attachments
Skatepark Quotes and Rendering
PGCC 2-14-24
AMERICANRAMPCOMPANY.COM
8650 - CA
PGCC
, PACIFIC GROVE
2-14-24
8650 - CA, PACIFIC GROVE
AMERICANRAMPCOMPANY.COM
PGCC 2-14-24
8650 - CA, PACIFIC GROVE
AMERICANRAMPCOMPANY.COM
PGCC 2-14-24
8650 - CA, PACIFIC GROVE
AMERICANRAMPCOMPANY.COM
PGCC 2-14-24
AMERICANRAMPCOMPANY.COM
8650 - CA
PGCC
, PACIFIC GROVE
2-14-24
601 S. McKinley Ave
Joplin, MO 64801
Toll-free: 800-RAMP-778
Local: 417-206-6816
Fax: 417-206-6888
[email protected]
Quote # Design # Customer Date Designer
Q28202.0 8650 City of Pacific Grove 01-08-24 Julia Brueckler Item Obstacle Height Width Length Pro Series
1 Grindbox 8" 4.0' 8.0'
2 Grindbox (2' Wide) 14" 2.0' 12.0'
3 Grind Rail (Round) 1.0' 2" 12.0'
4 Half Pipe 3.0' 4.0' 28.0'
5 Half Pipe 3.0' 4.0' 28.0'
6 Half Pipe 3.0' 4.0' 28.0'
7 Half Pipe 3.0' 4.0' 28.0'
TOTAL $55,127.27
Notes:
• This turnkey quote includes Equipment, Shipping, and Installation. • This quote includes prevailing wage. If not applicable, call for revised quote. • This quote does not include sales tax. If applicable, call for revised quote. • Quote is good for 30 days.
Purchase through our competitively bid government Sourcewell contract.
PGCC 2-14-24
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: Jenica Maldonado, Special Counsel, Brian Pierik, City Attorney MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance; Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce and Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager;
2. 3. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney;
4. Other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
In 1967, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (Pacific Grove) adopted Ordinance No. 573, which enacted certain portions of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (Municipal Code) relating to the appointment and removal of the City Manager.
Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code sets forth the terms upon which the City Manager may be removed from the position upon a five-sevenths’ (i.e., super majority) vote of the Council of Pacific Grove (City Council). Section 2.06.020 also requires that the City Manager be furnished with a written notice of the City Council’s intention to remove the City Manager and the reasons for such removal, at least 30 days before the effective date of removal. Upon receiving notice, the City Manager may elect to schedule a hearing before the City Council regarding the proposed removal. The purpose of the hearing is for the City Manager to present the City Council with his or her grounds of opposition to his or her removal; however, the City Council shall use its uncontrolled discretion and its action shall be final.
Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code also authorizes the City Council to suspend the City Manager from duty after providing notice of removal but the City Manager is entitled to his or her compensation until removal by resolution subsequent to the public hearing, if requested.
Section 2.06.020 also contains a limitation of removal of the City Manager. It states that a City Manager is prohibited from being removed within six months of any general municipal election held in Pacific Grove where a member of the City Council is elected.
PGCC 2-14-24
Pacific Grove where a member of the City Council is elected.
After a review of surrounding cities and various municipal codes, it is clear that Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code is an outlier. It does not appear that it is customary for a public employee, such as a City Manager, to be given a hearing if the employee’s dismissal is not for cause but convenience. The City of Santa Cruz’s Municipal Code authorizes the removal of the City Manager by the affirmative votes of at least four (4) members of the City Council, subject to certain time limitations relating to a general municipal election. The Municipal Codes and City Charters for the cities of San Luis Obispo and Monterey are silent as to the removal of the City Manager.
Moreover, the Brown Act authorizes the City Council to consider, in closed session, the dismissal of a public employee, such as a City Manager, or to hear the complaints or charges brought against an employee by another person or employee. Under the Brown Act, the impacted employee is also authorized to request that such dismissal and/or discussion of complaints and charges be discussed in public session. The Brown Act mandates that the impacted employee be provided notice of any such closed session and his/her ability to request that such discussions be held in open session. Government Code Section 54957
Special Counsel has confirmed that Section 2.06.010, entitled, “Appointment – Conditions of employment” provides that “[o]ther conditions of employment may be spelled out in a hiring agreement between the city manager and the council.” Thus, it is appropriate for any terms governing termination and/or removal to be set forth in the agreement between the City Council and City Manager.
OPTIONS
Approve Ordinance as proposed and direct City Attorney to take necessary actions to properly notice and schedule a second reading and adoption of Ordinance.
1. 2. Take no action. This will result in Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code to remain enacted.
3. Provide staff alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the Ordinance.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Amended Proposed Ordinance 2/9/2024
PGCC 2-14-24
- 1 -
42943501.1
ORDINANCE NO. 24 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE REPEALING
SECTION 2.06.020 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER
FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove (Pacific Grove) is a charter city organized under the constitution of the State of California.
2. Pacific Grove became a charter city on April 22, 1927. New Charters were adopted in 1955, 1969, and 1974.
3. Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code sets forth the terms upon which the City Manager may be removed from the position upon a five-sevenths’ (i.e., super majority) vote of the council of Pacific Grove (City Council). Section 2.06.020 also requires that the City Manager be furnished with a written notice of the City Council’s intention to remove the City Manager and the reasons for such removal, at least 30 days before the effective date of removal. Upon receiving notice, the City Manager may elect to schedule a hearing before the City Council regarding the proposed removal. The purpose of the hearing is for the City Manager to present the City Council with his or her grounds of opposition to his or her removal; however, the City Council shall use its uncontrolled discretion and its action shall be final.
4. Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code also authorizes the City Council to suspend the City Manager from duty after providing notice of removal, but the City Manager is entitled to his or her compensation until removal by resolution subsequent to the public hearing, if requested.
5. Section 2.06.020 also contains a limitation of removal of the City Manager. It states that a City Manager is prohibited from being removed within six months of any general municipal election held in Pacific Grove where a member of the City Council is elected.
6. This ordinance repeals Section 2.06.020, to be replaced with the text “Repealed.”
7. Notice of a public hearing regarding Ordinance No. ____ was published in [insert newspaper] on [date].
8. This ordinance does not constitute a Project as that term is defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
PGCC 2-14-24
- 2 -
42943501.1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The facts set forth above are true and correct and are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be liberally construed to implement its purposes.
SECTION 5. 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 6. In accordance with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following adoption on second reading by the City Council. (Continued on following page)
PGCC 2-14-24
- 3 -
42943501.1
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS __ day of _________, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 2-14-24
- 1 - 43561035.1
ORDINANCE NO. 2024 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE REPEALINGAMENDING
SECTION 2.06.020 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER
FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove (Pacific Grove) is a charter city organized under the constitution of the State of California.
2. Pacific Grove became a charter city on April 22, 1927. New Charters were adopted in 1955, 1969, and 1974.
3. Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code sets forth the terms upon which the City Manager may be removed from the position upon a five-sevenths’ (i.e., super majority) vote of the council of Pacific Grove (City Council). Section 2.06.020 also requires that the City Manager be furnished with a written notice of the City Council’s intention to remove the City Manager and the reasons for such removal, at least 30 days before the effective date of removal. Upon receiving notice, the City Manager may elect to schedule a hearing before the City Council regarding the proposed removal. The purpose of the hearing is to present the City Council with his or her grounds of opposition to his or her removal; however, the City Council shall use its uncontrolled discretion and its action shall be final.
4. Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code also authorizes the City Council to suspend the City Manager from duty after providing notice of removal but the City Manager is entitled to his or her compensation until removal by resolution subsequent to the public hearing, if requested.
5. Section 2.06.020 also contains a limitation of removal of the City Manager. It states that a City Manager is prohibited from being removed within six months of any general municipal election held in Pacific Grove where a member of the City Council is elected.
6. This ordinance repeals Section 2.06.020, to be replaced with the text “Repealed.” This ordinance amends Section 2.06.020 to strike the existing language in this section in its entirety and to replace such language as follows: “The procedure for removal of the City Manager shall be set forth in the hiring agreement between the City and the City Manager.”
7. Notice of a public hearing regarding Ordinance No. ____ was published in [insert newspaper] on [date]. Article 19 City Manager of the Charter of Pacific Grove provides that “[t]he procedure for removal of the City Manager shall be prescribed by ordinance.”
8. This ordinance does not constitute a Project as that term is defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the PGCC 2-14-24
- 2 - 43561035.1
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The facts set forth above are true and correct and are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Section 2.06.020 of the Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and is replaced with the following: “The procedure for removal of the City Manager shall be set forth in the hiring agreement between the City and the City Manager.” SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be liberally construed to implement its purposes.
SECTION 5. 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 6. In accordance with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following adoption on second reading by the City Council. (Continued on following page)
PGCC 2-14-24
- 3 - 43561035.1
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS __ day of _________, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________________
_______________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 2-14-24