Agenda packet, regular meeting — Pacific Grove City Council, March 6, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, March 6, 2024, 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.

PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.

PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL EVEN IF THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING ZOOM.

THE CITY WILL DO ITS BEST TO RESOLVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO VIEW THE MEETING ON PENINSULA CHANNEL 25.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Amelio

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 1 ends

A. Rotary Club Donation

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.

A. Written General Public Comment

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 February 14, 2024 City Council Adjourned Meetings PG 7 Reference: Sandra Kandell
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the February 21, 2024 Special and Regular Meetings PG 16 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Minutes of the February 28, 2024 Goals Update and Budget Workshop PG 24 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 2 ends

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 A. Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 to add Section G for Agenda Language regarding Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies PG 27 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 to add Section G for Agenda Language Regarding Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies.

Alternatively, take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager PG 37
Reference: Jenica Maldonado, Special Counsel, Brian Pierik, City Attorney Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an 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
B. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 23/24 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget PG 45
Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 23.76.021 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating the Membership of the Historic Resource Committee PG 58 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an Ordinance Amending Section PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 3 ends

Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an Ordinance Amending Section

23.76.021 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating the Membership of the Historic Resource Committee.

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. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 63
Reference: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
Recommended Action:

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. PGUSD & City of Pacific Grove MOU ELOP PG 65
Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
Recommended Action:

Approve the City of Pacific Grove to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with Pacific Grove Unified School District for the purpose of creating a partnership to offer a free summer recreation camp through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program grant.

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Contract Award -Phase 9 Waster Water Collection System Improvements PG 73 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action:

Authorize an agreement with Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Phase 9 Waster Water Collection System Improvements Project in an amount not to exceed $717,280 plus an 15% contingency.

1. 2. Alternatively, take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Initial Study, Negative Declaration
C. Contract Amendment #2 for Professional Contract Planner Services with Harris & PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 4 ends

C. Contract Amendment #2 for Professional Contract Planner Services with Harris & Associates, Inc. PG 76
Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve Amendment #2 to Professional Services Agreement with Harris & Associates, Inc. not to exceed $381,560 to:

A. Allow continuation of current contract planner staffing services through June 30, 2024 for Fiscal Year 23-24 ($87,840); and
B. Provide contract planner staffing services for Fiscal Year 24-25 ($293,720).

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

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.

A. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Regarding Order of Agenda PG 91
Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance; Motion to waive further reading and introduce an Ordinance Amending Section

2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Regarding Order of Agenda;

2. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney;

3. 4. Other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Request Direction by Council to City Manager to Issue a Request for Proposal for a Demographer in Connection with the California Voting Rights Act PG 95 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Motion to:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 5 ends

Recommended Action: Motion to:

1. Direct City Manager to issue a Request for Proposal for a qualified demographer to study the demographics of the City including:
a. The population of the City and its various racial and ethnic groups under the 2020 Census.
b. The most recent estimates of the proportion of eligible voters in the various racial and ethnic groups in the City.
c. Estimate of the socio-economic characteristics of the various racial and ethnic groups in the City.
d. The criteria governing the design of electoral districts for the election of City Council members.
e. A proposed timeline for the transition to by-district elections should the City Council decide upon that course of action.

2. Direct City Manager to return to the City Council with the demographer’s report for discussion and further direction.

Take other action as directed by City Council related to this agenda item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION
A. Public Employment, (Government Code § 54957)
Title: City Manager

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 3-6-2024

Page 6 ends

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/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the February 14, 2024 City Council Adjourned Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 2-14-24
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 7 ends

1 .

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 5:00 P.M.
(Adjourned from February 7, 2024)
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

PACIFIC GROVE MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY
HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Mayor Pro Tem Smith arrived at 5:15 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Smith absent, to approve the agenda.

CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Public comment received from Colleen Ingram.

1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, and Katy Suttorp, Esq.

Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
B. Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 618 Ocean View Boulevard, the Grill at Lovers Point City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager; Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, James Minshew, Management Analyst Parties: Joseph F. Cavallaro
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) One potential case (Employee Complaint)
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 8 ends

2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

AMENDED REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 6:00 P.M.
(Adjourned from February 7, 2024.)
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Coletti led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council voted 5-2, Councilmembers Beck and Coletti dissenting, to approve the agenda continuing Regular Agenda item 12E Recommendations from Parklet Subcommittee to the Council’s February 21, 2024 meeting.

2. PRESENTATIONS

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, and Katy Suttorp, Esq.

Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 618 Ocean View Boulevard, the Grill at Lovers Point City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager; Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, James Minshew, Management Analyst Parties: Joseph F. Cavallaro
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 9 ends

3 Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) One potential case (Employee Complaint)
City Attorney Brian Peirik reported no action was taken as to any of the three noticed Closed Session items.

B. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comments received from Adam de Boor, Mike Gibbs, Tina Rau, Sally Moore, Jane Haines, and Lisa Ciani.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 9A was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Beck, the Council voted 7-0 to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the January 17, 2024 Special and Regular Meetings Action: Approved minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the Actions of the City Manager/Emergency Services Director Declaring a State of Emergency and Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter to the Office of Emergency Services Requesting Assistance Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-004 Ratifying the Actions of the City Manager/Emergency Services Director and authorized the Mayor to send a letter to the Office of Emergency Services Requesting Assistance.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

7. ORDINANCES

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Second Quarter Treasurer’s Quarterly Report
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Second Quarter Budget Report.

Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 10 ends

4 Section 15378
C. Second Quarter FY 23/24 Purchase Order Report
Action: Received the FY 23/24 Second Quarter Purchase Order Report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Second Quarter 23/24 Workers' Compensation Report
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Safety Lighting at Robert Down Elementary School Project Action: Received Report
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
F. Housing Element Monthly Status Update
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Authorization to Participate in a Joint Subcommittee with the Pacific Grove Unified School District This item was pulled and considered immediately following the consent Agenda.

Reference: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager
Recommended Action: Authorization to Participate in Joint Subcommittee with the School Board and Appoint the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to the Committee.

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: November 14, 2023 Action: Received the minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
*****

9.A. Authorization to Participate in a Joint Subcommittee with the Pacific Grove Unified School District
No public comment received.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, the Council voted 7-0 and authorized participation in a Joint Subcommittee with the School Board and appointed the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to the Committee, and Councilmember Poduri as alternate.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 11 ends

5 REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies This item was continued from the Council's January 17, 2024 meeting.

Public comments received from Lisa Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Beth Walker, and Carol Marquart.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Beck and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, the Council voted 7-0 to direct the City Attorney to return to the Council with a resolution amending Council Policy 000-017.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Direct to City Attorney to return to the City Council with an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 or other actions related to this Agenda item.

This item was continued from the Council's January 17, 2024 meeting.

Public comments received from Adam de Boor, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Rebecca Lee, Daniel Miller, Lisa Ciani, and Carmelita Garcia.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Beck, the Council voted 7-0 to direct the City Attorney to return to the Council with an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 (a) clarifying provisions of noticing requirements for special meetings.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook Revision This item was continued from Council's January 17, 2024 meeting.

Public comments received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Rebecca Lee.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, the Council voted 7-0 to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution adopting revised Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook 1/17/24, and direct the City Manager and City Attorney to provide committee training.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Council took a break from 8:00 – 8:10 p.m. Upon return, Council moved 13A to be heard directly after 12D.

D. Codifying Council Member Inquiry Authority
Public comments received from Bill Kampe, Joy Colangelo, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Colleen Ingram, Daniel Miller, and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Council Coletti, the Council voted 5-2, Councilmember Amelio and Poduri dissenting, to

1. Direct the City Attorney to finalize draft Ordinance Codifying Provisions of Article DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 12 ends

6 21 of the City Charter with direction to us language outlined in Version 2 (1) The “administrative service” means officers and employees of the City that are under the City Manager’s direct supervision and control. Any inquiries regarding contract-related services shall be directed to the City Manager;

2. Direct the City Attorney to finalize related draft Council Policy Establishing Procedures for Council Members to Make an Inquiry Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.110 using language outlined in Version 2 (1) The “administrative service” means officers and employees of the City that are under the City Manager’s direct supervision and control. Any inquiries regarding contract-related services shall be directed to the City Manager; and

3. Direct the City Attorney to return to City Council for first reading of an Ordinance.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. First Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager This item was formerly 13A.

No public comment received.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Beck, the Council voted 6-1, Councilmember Poduri dissenting, to

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;

2. Waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce an Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager; and

3. Direct 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
F. Recommendations from Parklet Subcommittee During the Approval of the Agenda, this item was continued to the Council’s February 21, 2024 meeting.

Reference: Councilmembers Luke Coletti, Lori McDonnell, Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager
Recommended Action:

1. Receive Report describing the design of the proposed curb extension and expanded sidewalk dining project prepared by the Parklet Subcommittee and City staff;

2. 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

3. 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.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
G. David Avenue Sidewalk Project
Public comments received from Andy Kubica, Sally Moore, Rebecca Lee, and Antony DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 13 ends

7 Tersol.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, the Council voted 7-0 to direct staff to proceed with phasing the installation of sidewalks on the school side of David Avenue.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 7-0 to adjourn the meeting and continue the Skatepark Project.

H. Skatepark Project – City Hall Parking Lot Due to time constraints, this item was continued to the Council’s February 21, 2024 meeting.

Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:

1. Receive the report and provide direction.

2. Alternatively, take other action related to this project.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. First Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager This item was moved and heard directly after Regular Agenda item 12D.

Reference: Jenica Maldonado, Special Counsel and Brian Pierik, City Attorney Recommended Action:

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;

2. Waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce an Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager; and

3. Direct 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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 10:14 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 14 ends

8 Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by Interim City Manager Pro Tempore: _________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 15 ends

Agenda No. 5 B

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/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the February 21, 2024 Special and Regular Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 2-21-24
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 16 ends

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 21, 2024, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Appearing Telephonically Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953:

Councilmember Poduri
999 N. 2nd Street
St. Louis, MO 63102

PACIFIC GROVE MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed

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 Amelio, Coletti, and McDonnell.

Appearing by Zoom: Councilmember Poduri. Mayor Pro Tem arrived at 5:15 p.m. Absent:

Councilmember Beck.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Councilmember Beck.

CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment received.

1. Written Public Comment
Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of Litigation Government Code §54956.9(d)(4)) Number of Cases: One (Arising out of letter received from Andrew Sandoval on August 25, 2022, copy included in Agenda Packet) CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 17 ends

2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, February 21, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Appearing Telephonically Pursuant to Government Code 54953:

Councilmember Poduri
999 N. 2nd Street St.

Louis, MO 63102

PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

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 Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, and McDonnell. Appearing by Zoom: Councilmember Poduri. Absent: Councilmember Beck.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Councilmember McDonnell led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Black History Month
Action: Council received the 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. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 18 ends

3 Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of Litigation Government Code §54956.9(d)(4)) Number of Cases: One (Arising out of letter received from Andrew Sandoval on August 25, 2022, copy included in Agenda Packet) CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
City Attorney Brian Pierik reported that no action was taken, and that Council would be returning to Closed Session once the Regular Meeting adjourns.

B. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment received from Joy Colangelo, Andy Kubica, Vince Tuminello, Nadja Mark, Colleen Ingram, Daniel Miller, and Anthony Ciani.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 8C was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda item 9A was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

6. RESOLUTIONS

7. ORDINANCES

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Core Revenue Report for January
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. January 2024 Check Register
Action: Received the check register.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 19 ends

4 C. Second Quarter FY 23/24 Capital Project Report & Update This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Reference: James Minshew, Management Analyst
Recommended Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Monterey-Salinas Transit Minutes: December 11, 2023 and January 8, 2024 Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Contract Amendment with Alvarez Technology Group for Information Technology Services This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Reference: Mohammed Khasimi, Chief Information Officer
Recommended Action: Approved an amendment to the contract with Alvarez Technology Group in amount not to exceed $139,900.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Minutes of January 1, 2024 Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
*****

8.C. Second Quarter FY 23/24 Capital Project Report & Update This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Public comment received from Andy Kubica and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Council received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9.A. Contract Amendment with Alvarez Technology Group for Information Technology Services This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Public comment received from Dan Miller, Nadja Mark, and Adam de Boor.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to approve an amendment to the contract with Alvarez Technology Group in amount not to exceed $139,900.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 20 ends

5 NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget Modifications and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget
Public comment received from Daniel Miller and Mike Gibbs.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce an Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget;

3. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Consider an Appeal of Architectural Permit (AP), Use Permit (UP) and Variance (VAR) 22-0284, 773-775 Ocean View Blvd, Pacific Grove (APN 006-071-007); continued from the City Council Regular Meeting on November 1, 2023 No public comment received.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council voted to
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
C. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 23.76.021 (a) of the Pacific Grove DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 21 ends

6 Municipal Code Relating the Membership of the Historic Resource Committee Attorney
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce an Ordinance Amending Section 23.76.021 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating the Membership of the Historic Resource Committee;

3. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Council took a break from 7:25-7:35 p.m.

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Housing Element Sites-Voter Approval Requirements
Public comment received from Don Murphy, Nancy Parsons, Lori Wick, Steve Obere, Pam Weaver, unnamed speaker, Peggy Gibbs, Mike Gibbs, Daniel Miller, Colleen Ingram, Ray Parsons, Marsha, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Adam de Boor, Nadja Mark, and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Council received the report and provided further direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Recommendations from Parklet Subcommittee This item was continued from 2/14/2024.

Public comment received from Don Murphy, Dave de Simone, Tina Rau, Liz Jacobs, Colleen Ingram, Adam de Boor, Beth Walker, Daniel Miller, Mike Gibbs, Marsha, Wendi Giles, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Mari Adams, Peggy Gibbs, Laura Abihider.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to direct the City Manager 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 direct the City Manager 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.

Motion carried 4-2-1, by the following roll call vote:

DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 22 ends

7 AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Coletti and McDonnell.

NOES: Councilmember Amelio and Poduri.

ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to adjourn the meeting and continue 12C Skatepark Project – City Hall Parking Lot to a date uncertain.

C. Skatepark Project – City Hall Parking Lot This item continued from 2/14/2024. Due to time constraints, this item was continued to a date uncertain.

Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:

1. Receive report and provide direction.

2. Alternatively, take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at approximately 10:44 p.m. Council returned to Closed Session for further discussion on the noticed agenda and adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 10:56 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by Interim City Manager Pro Tempore: _________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 23 ends

Agenda No. 5 C

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/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the February 28, 2024 Goals Update and Budget Workshop CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 2-28-24
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 24 ends

1 .

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA GOALS UPDATE

AND BUDGET WORKSHOP
Wednesday, February 28, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY

HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY
YOU MAY VIEW THE MEETING LIVE VIA ZOOM AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Councilmember Beck.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Mayor Peake led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted 5-0-2, Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Councilmember Beck absent, to approve the agenda.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO GOALS UPDATE AND
BUDGET WORKSHOP (To be taken separately with each item.) A. Written General Public Comment

REGULAR AGENDA

NEW BUSINESS
A. Community Goals and Work Plan Review for FY 24-25
Public comment received from Donald Murphy, Peggy Gibbs, Andy Kubica, Mike Gibbs, Rebecca Lee, and Kim Akeman.

Action: Council reviewed existing Work Plan and provided direction to staff.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 25 ends

2 B. Five-Year Fiscal Forecast and Budget Workshop
Public comment received from Mike Gibbs, Andy Kubica, and Peggy Gibbs.

Action: Council received report and provided direction to staff.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the special meeting at 8:47 p.m.

Page 26 ends

Agenda No. 6 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 to add Section G for Agenda Language regarding Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to adopt Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 to add Section G for Agenda Language Regarding Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies Alternatively, take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
Under the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act) as set forth in California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq, public comment at meetings of a legislative body for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body.

On October 18, 2023, the City Council meeting was disrupted by remote speakers, via Zoom, who used the public comment period to voice hateful, racist speech that violated the permissible scope of public comment under the Brown Act.

On November 15, 2023, the City Council directed the City Attorney to return with possible amendments to City Policy 000-017 regarding public comment from remote participants at meetings of legislative bodies. The City Council also voted at that meeting to allow for public comment via zoom.

On February 14, 2024, the City Council was presented with an Agenda Report addressing the subject of what options are available to the City in regard to public comments and behavior during meetings of a legislative body that are disruptive or otherwise violate the permissible scope of public comment under the Brown Act.

Pursuant to the direction of the City Council on February 14, 2024, a Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 to add Section G for Agenda Language Regarding Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies is hereby presented for Council consideration. Section G as proposed reads as follows:
“Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 27 ends

agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.” The legislative body may not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Government Code § 54954.3(c); Pacific Grove Municipal Code section 2.04.050(d)(2) Therefore, speakers who present comments which constitute such criticism should not be muted.

OPTIONS
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Proposed Reso and Policy
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 28 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-xxx
RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY 000-017 TO ADD

SECTION G FOR AGENDA LANGUAGE REGARDING PUBLIC

COMMENT AT MEETINGS OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES

FINDINGS

1. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”) set forth in Government Code Section 54950 et. seq., public comment at meetings of a legislative body for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body.

2. On October 18, 2023, the City Council meeting was disrupted by remote speakers, via Zoom, who used the public comment period to voice hateful, racist speech that violated the permissible scope of public comment under the Brown Act.

3. On November 15, 2023, the City Council directed the City Attorney to return with possible amendments to City Policy 000-017 regarding public comment from remote participants at meetings of legislative bodies. The City Council also voted at that meeting to allow for public comment via zoom.

4. On February 14, 2024, the City Council was present with an Agenda Report addressing the subject of what options are available to the City in regard to public comments and behavior during meetings of a legislative body that are disruptive or otherwise violate the permissible scope of public comment under the Brown Act.

5. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council on February 14, 2024, a Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 to a. dd Section G for Agenda Language Regarding Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies is hereby presented for Council consideration. Section G as proposed reads as follows:
“Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting inperson engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.”

6. The legislative body may not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Government Code § 54954.3(c); Pacific Grove Municipal Code section 2.04.050(d)(2) Therefore, speakers who present comments which constitute such criticism should not be muted.

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

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 29 ends

1. The Council determines that each of the Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. The Council hereby approves this Resolution Amending Council Policy 000-017 To Add Section G For Agenda Language Regarding Public Comment At Meetings Of Legislative Bodies and the amended Council Policy 000-017 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and hereby incorporated by this reference.

3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6th day of March 2024 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 3-6-2024

Page 30 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

EXHIBIT “A”
City of Pacific Grove
Council Policy
Subject Policy Effective Date Page
Order of Agenda for Council
Meetings 000-17 December 20, 2017 Page 1 of 4
A. Council meeting agendas are designed to facilitate the orderly conduct of City business, provide adequate time for the City Council to make informed, deliberative decisions, and provide members of the public an opportunity to present information to the City Council on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City.

B. This policy establishes the general practice to be followed with respect to the management of agenda items before the City Council. This policy shall not be construed to limit or impair rights of the public as set forth in the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Public Records Act, or any other provision of law.

C. In the development of a specific meeting’s agenda, the City Manager may adjust this order, when warranted. The Mayor and Council may also adjust the order in which matters are considered at the meeting. Deviation from the order of the agenda set in this policy, by itself, shall not provide a basis to reverse or invalidate any action of the City Council.

D. The standard order of the City Council agenda shall be as follows:

Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance

1. Approval of the Agenda
Councilmembers shall have an opportunity to request changes to the order of items, to postpone items to a future meeting, or to add new matters in accord with the emergency or urgency requirements set forth in the Government Code.

2. Presentations
Presentations shall be made on behalf of the City to persons or organizations, and/or brief presentations (not to exceed 5 minutes, each) made to the Council by others upon approval of the City Manager. Presentations shall neither receive Council action nor provide a reason for Council debate. Council may ask brief questions or refer matters to staff for consideration on a future agenda.

3. Council and Staff Announcements
Announcements shall be limited to City-related items and shall neither receive Council PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 31 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

action nor provide a reason for Council debate. Council may ask brief questions or refer matters to staff for consideration on a future agenda.

Report out of any closed session held prior to the Regular meeting will be provided as the first announcement.

4. Public Comment
These are comments from the public on matters that are on the agenda (including the Consent Agenda) as well as for matters not on the agenda during General Public Comment which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City.

Persons who wish to address the Council shall use the microphone and are asked to state their name. It is helpful if speakers also indicate the subject matter of their comments. (Note: Even if a speaker refuses to state his or her name or the subject matter of the comment, the speaker shall not be denied the right to speak.) Accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities.

Public comment shall be limited to three minutes per speaker for each item on the Agenda.

For General Public Comment, each speaker shall be limited to three minutes.

In the discretion of the Mayor, the length of the public comment on an item on the Agenda may be reduced to lower than three minutes when appropriate based on the number of speakers for an item and/or the Mayor may limit the total time for public comment on an item on the Agenda.

Communication to the Council under General Public Comment will be received without comment while the public comment period is open. When public comment during General Public Comment Communications is closed, questions from the public may be referred to staff for a brief response.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3 (c), the City Council shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9, in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible, and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the Mayor may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. After the meeting room has been cleared, the Mayor may readmit an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.95, the Mayor may cause the removal of any individual for disrupting the meeting subject to the following rules:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 32 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

(1) Prior to removing an individual, the Mayor shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal.
(2) The Mayor may then cause the removal of the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior.
(3) “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, one of the following:
(A) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to Section 54954.3 or any other law. (B) Engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force. (4) “True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat.
(5) If there has been a use of force or a true threat of force, there is no obligation for the Mayor to provide a warning to the individual before causing the individual to be removed from the meeting.

Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and noncontroversial matters, and may include action on resolutions and second readings of ordinances, provided no public comment is anticipated on those items. The purpose of the Consent Agenda is to make efficient use of available time by considering all routine and non-controversial items under one motion. The Consent Agenda is structured so that any Councilmember, staff, or the public may pull an item for discussion or questions.

A single vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed.

Councilmembers may notify the City Clerk if they want a specific vote or abstention recorded as to any individual item.

The standard elements of the Consent Agenda are:

5. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes

6. Resolutions

7. Ordinances

8. Reports – Information Only
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 33 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

9. Reports – Requiring Action

10. Meeting Minutes of Commissions, Boards, and Committees When a Councilmember wishes to remove an item the Councilmember will discuss his/her question(s) with staff prior to the meeting in order for staff to research the answer(s), which shall be provided ahead of time to all members (e.g., in the blue folders).

The Mayor will first ask the members of the Council, then members of the public if anyone wants to pull an item from consent. The person pulling the item will simply state the item number and subject.

Unless a specific item is pulled for discussion, the Council shall ordinarily approve all action items or recommendations on the entire Consent Agenda under a single motion.

Council’s vote to approve the Consent Agenda is a direction to staff to proceed with each action as recommended.

Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
The Council shall separately consider and act on each item removed from the Consent Agenda. Such items shall be heard in their normal place on the Regular Agenda. That placement will be noted on each consent item. The discussion format for those items will follow the protocol for the Regular Agenda.

Regular Agenda
The protocol for deliberation on regular agenda items is:
1) The agenda report is presented by staff or other person who prepared the report. The report can be concise yet sufficient to establish context and key facts for the item. 2) Public comment is received, then closed.
3) Council deliberates and takes action as appropriate for the item This protocol explicitly omits the practice of clarifying questions from council prior to opening for public comment. Councilmembers can ask for clarification prior to the Council meeting and can also ask questions during the council deliberation phase.

11. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing agenda includes matters for which a public hearing notice was posted or published and for which public comment is anticipated.

12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business
The Unfinished Business agenda shall consist of matters that return to the Council for action, the same matter having been considered at or continued from a prior meeting or are updates or actions for long term and ongoing topics.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 34 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

13. New Business
The New Business agenda shall consist of matters not previously considered by the Council.

14. Full Presentations
Presentations under this item are those that may exceed five minutes and are made to the Council upon invitation of the Mayor or City Manager. Presentations shall neither receive Council action nor provide a reason for Council debate. Council may ask brief questions or refer matters to staff for consideration on a future agenda.

15. Closed Sessions (if required)
Closed Sessions are held in compliance with the Brown Act. The specific time for any Closed Session may be set at other times at the convenience of Council. The Council may adjourn to Closed Session on any other agenda item if authorized by law, upon advice of the City Attorney.

16. Public Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session This announcement shall immediately follow any Closed Session.

Adjournment
E. Whenever practical, closed session items are best addressed during a special meeting prior to a regular meeting, as a convenience to the public, beginning at 5:00 pm.

F. All agenda reports recommending Council action shall include the following: title, recommendation, background, justification, and financial impact. Closed session agenda reports shall be confidential pursuant to California Government Code 54963 and PGMC §2.04.080.

G. The Agendas the meetings of all Legislative Bodies shall include the following Statement:
““Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.” Adopted May 2, 2001 - Resolution No.1-025
Amended June 3, 2009 - Resolution No. 9-021
Amended February 3, 2010 - Resolution No.10-014
Amended September 1, 2010 - Resolution No.10-068
Amended November 17, 2010 - Resolution No.10-099
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 35 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

Amended February 2, 2011 - Resolution No. 11-008
Amended January 20, 2016 - by motion of Council
Amended December 20, 2017 - Resolution No. 17-032
Amended September 1, 2021 - Resolution 21-028
Amended February 1, 2023 – by Minute Order
Amended March 6, 2024 by Resolution No. ________
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 36 ends

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: Jenica Maldonado, Special Counsel, Brian Pierik, City Attorney MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Second Reading of an 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
Hold second reading and adopt an Ordinance Repealing Section 2.06.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to the Removal of the City Manager.

DISCUSSION
The City Council approved the first reading of the aforementioned ordinance at its February 14, 2024, adjourned meeting. There were no substantive changes between the first and second readings. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on February 29, 2024.

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 3-6-2024

Page 37 ends

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
Provide 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 3-6-2024

Page 38 ends

- 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 3-6-2024

Page 39 ends

- 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 3-6-2024

Page 40 ends

- 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 3-6-2024

Page 41 ends

- 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.

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.”

Page 42 ends

- 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.

Page 43 ends

- 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 3-6-2024

Page 44 ends

Agenda No. 7 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 23/24 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget.

DISCUSSION
On February 21, 2024, the City Council received a Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget Report, as well as considered an ordinance to amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. The Council approved the first reading of the ordinance at that meeting; and a summary of the ordinance was published on February 29, 2024. An overview of the information that was presented is included within this report.

The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget on June 21, 2023. It is customary at this time of the fiscal year to amend the current budget to reflect any updates to revenues and expenditures.

The City Council’s approval is needed to amend the budget. An ordinance reflecting those changes, as well as an overview of significant changes are included with this agenda report. Supplementary information related to the General Fund, as well as to other funds are included in Attachments 1-3.

Additional details will also be provided during the presentation.

GENERAL FUND
The Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget was developed with conservative optimism. The revenue assumptions incorporated into the budget reflected continued strong growth in the property taxes, a full-year of Measure A sales tax revenues, a partial year of cannabis tax; and slower, but stable growth in most other categories. Expenditures were anticipated to align with the increase in revenues; and the use of the unassigned fund was appropriated only to support one-time expenditures. Fiscal Year 2023-24 also marks the first full year since the pandemic, that the City has not included supplementary revenues, such as ARPA funds, in the General Fund operating budget.

At the time the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget was adopted, there was a planned $841,086 use of the unassigned fund balance for one-time expenditures and a projected $11.3 million ending fund balance.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 45 ends

This included just over $1 million for capital outlays and capital project transfers; and a $500,000 placeholder for the General Plan. When this net difference is applied to the updated Fiscal Year 2023-24 beginning unassigned fund balance, the estimated year-end balance is approximately $13.9 million. The budget was adjusted for key unexpended contracts and purchases that were carried forward into Fiscal Year 2023-24; and later updated to support the final contract costs for the Housing Element/General Plan, as well as miscellaneous adjustments. It is anticipated that the Fiscal Year 2023-24 General Fund unassigned ending fund balance will be approximately $13.3 million. This is approximately $2.6 million above the reserve level requirements. These unprogrammed funds are primarily the result of budgetary savings, increased revenues in the prior fiscal year that contributed to a greater than anticipated beginning fund balance; and increased revenue performance in the current year.

An overview of the previous and proposed budgetary projections is presented in the subsequent table, with detailed information on mid-year updates provided in Attachment 1.

General Fund Balance Projections
FY 23/24
Adopted
FY 23/24
Amended
FY 23/24
Mid-Year Est.

Preliminary Beginning
Fund Balance $ 14,815,979 $ 14,815,979 $ 14,815,979
Estimated Revenues 31,263,187 31,263,187 32,092,000
Estimated Expenses 32,104,273 34,117,976 33,593,659
Net Operating Difference ($841,086) (2,854,789) ($1,501,659) Estimated Ending Fund
Balance $ 13,974,893 $ 11,961,190 $ 13,314,320
Revenues
The mid-year projections include an estimated increase in revenues of approximately $829,000 when compared to the Amended Budget. This includes approximately $505,000 in greater than anticipated tax receipts, $187,000 in grant reimbursements for the prior year storms and the Recreation Department's Expanded Learning Opportunity Program; and an estimated increase of $441,000 in the Licenses, Permits, and Impact Fees (LPIF) category. The revised tax estimates build upon the final Fiscal Year 2022-23 revenues, while also incorporating current trends. The increase in LPIF primarily reflects the receipt of a single construction permit of $277,882 related to a major hotel project. This growth is projected to be partially offset by a $437,687 reduction in promissory note proceeds for water entitlements, net of other adjustments. The promissory note proceeds were initially estimated at $625,187; however $62,500 was received in the prior year and $187,500 are projected to be received in this fiscal year.

Expenditures
Expenses are initially projected to be approximately $524,000 less than anticipated. This includes an $87,000 reduction in net operating costs and a $437,687 decrease in interfund transfers. The net reduction in operating costs is largely due to a $232,000 decrease in Police Department salaries and benefits, resulting from position vacancies; a $159,000 reduction in the Community Development Department budget, which includes allocating $97,000 in Housing Element/General Plan costs to the Operating Grant and General Plan Maintenance Fee Funds; and $25,000 in various adjustments. These operational savings were offset by a proposed increase of $194,000 in the Recreation Department, and a $135,000 increase in internal service fund (ISF) charges to assist in meeting ISF fund balance requirements. The request for a budgetary increase in the Recreation Department primarily reflects PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 46 ends

$136,000 in additional seasonal salaries to assist with summer programs and the externally funded Expanded Learning Opportunity Program (ELOP), along with increased utility costs. Additional information regarding recreation programming will be presented as part of the mid-year budget, with updated goal information provided during the Budget Workshop.

As part of the mid-year budget, staff is also requesting to increase a 3/4 time Librarian position to full-time position. The estimated annual cost associated with this transition is approximately $25,000.

The funding to support this change would come from the on-call salary budget of approximately $54,000. The remaining $29,000 would be made available for on-call staff. It is anticipated that this cost-neutral change will assist with employee retention.

Fund Balance
The City's new audit firm is in the process of producing the financial sections of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Statements (ACFR). In Fiscal Year 2022-23, the City updated and implemented the following new Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements:

GASB 87 - Leases; and GASB 96 - Subscription Based Information Technology Arrangements. The City confirmed with the Independent Auditors that the calculation of the preliminary beginning General Fund balance was consistent with the new pronouncements and the draft financial statements. It is anticipated that the ACFR, along with the Independent Auditor Report will be presented to the City Council in early March.

OTHER FUNDS
Listings of all projected changes to revenues and expenditures within Other Funds are included in Attachments 2 and 3. To facilitate stronger budgetary management, staff would like to amend the budget to reflect the identified changes. None of the changes resulted in a negative available fund balance, with the exception of a deficit of $15,000 in the Local Water Project (LWP) Fund. Staff is recommending making an adjustment to the LWP fund as it gets closer to year-end. This will provide staff with a better opportunity to assess the impact of the rate change on Local Water Project revenues, as well as the rainy season.

OPTIONS

1. Make no adjustments

2. Provide alternate direction to staff
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The modifications to the General Fund are anticipated to result in a drawdown of unassigned fund balance in the amount of $1.5 million. This is primarily related to the use of fund balance to support the amended Housing Element contract and capital improvements. This is projected to result in an estimated ending unassigned General Fund balance of approximately $13.3 million. This places the estimated ending fund balance $2.6 million above the City's updated reserve threshold of $10.7 million.

The combined net change to all other funds is approximately $644,000. The updated estimated ending fund balances can be found within the Ordinance.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 47 ends

Attachment 1_General Fund Overview
Attachment 2_Other Funds Revenue Summary
Attachment 3_Other Funds Expenditure Summary
Attachment 4_Budget Ordinance
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 48 ends

FY 23/24 Adopted FY 23/24 Amended
FY 23/24 Mid-Year
Estimate
Amended Budget to
Mid-Year Difference
Beginning Fund Balance (1) $ 14,815,979 $ 14,815,979 $ 14,815,979 $ 14,815,979 Revenues
Property Taxes $ 9,609,000 $ 9,609,000 $ 9,806,000 197,000 (2) TOT and Licenses 6,562,000 6,562,000 6,840,000 278,000 (3) Sales and Use Tax 5,957,000 5,957,000 6,039,000 82,000 (4) Franchise and Utility User Taxes 3,590,000 3,590,000 3,628,000 38,000 Business Licenses 370,000 370,000 385,000 15,000
Cannabis Tax 100,000 100,000 - (100,000) (5)
Other Taxes 176,000 176,000 171,000 (5,000)
License, permits, and impact fees 838,000 838,000 1,279,000 441,000 (6) Intergovernmental Revenues 58,000 58,000 245,000 187,000 (7) Charges for Services 2,072,000 2,072,000 2,141,000 69,000 Fines and Forfeitures 125,000 125,000 34,000 (91,000) (8) Interest, rents, and concessions 435,000 435,000 501,000 66,000 Other revenues 1,371,187 1,371,187 1,023,000 (348,187) (9) - - - -
$ 31,263,187 $ 31,263,187 $ 32,092,000 $ 828,813
Expenditures - - - -
Departments
City Council $ 310,998 $ 318,600 $ 262,449 (56,151) (10) City Manager 1,225,545 1,455,696 1,443,706 (11,990)
Economic Development 369,025 369,815 383,826 14,011
City Attorney 996,100 1,144,480 1,144,480 -
Finance 1,374,546 1,450,956 1,475,034 24,078
Information Systems 935,429 1,034,941 1,019,239 (15,702) Community Development 3,022,491 4,049,815 3,891,205 (158,610) (11) Police 8,336,438 8,347,338 8,115,564 (231,774) (12)
Fire 4,403,000 4,403,000 4,498,600 95,600 (13)
Public Works 5,011,544 5,044,698 5,098,853 54,155
Library 1,159,335 1,167,695 1,172,182 4,487
Recreation 1,189,769 1,194,749 1,388,405 193,656 (14)
Museum 337,400 337,400 338,400 1,000
Capital Outlay 215,000 365,140 365,800 660
Capital Project Transfers 850,000 850,000 850,000 -
Debt Service 1,428,466 1,428,466 1,428,416 (50)
Interfund Transfers 939,187 1,155,187 717,500 (437,687) (15) Total $ 32,104,273 $ 34,117,976 $ 33,593,659 $ (524,317) Net Difference $ (841,086) $ (2,854,789) $ (1,501,659) $ Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ 13,974,893 $ 11,961,190 $ 13,314,320 - - -
Reserve Calculation
Expenditures applicable to policy (16) $ 30,794,941 $ 30,707,651 Policy percentage - 35% $ 10,778,229 $ 10,747,678
Difference from policy $ 1,182,961 $ 2,566,643
General Fund Overview
Notes:
(1) The beginning fund balance represents the preliminary audited financial statements of $14.8 million. (2) Adjusted based on prior and current year performance; and additional information from the County of Monterey.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 49 ends

(3) Increased estimate to reflect 3.1% over the prior year based on year to date performance. (4) Adjusted based on performance and alignment with City and HdL estimates. (5) It is not anticipated that there will be sufficient time to prepare the regulatory framework; and permit a storefront with commenced operations. (6) The increase is primarily related to a single receipt of $277,882 for a major hotel project, as well as increased construction permitting. (7) Primarily reflects $153,000 in reimbursements for prior year storm costs and funding to support the Recreation Extended Learning Opportunity Programs of $55,000, net of other grant adjustments.
(8) This revenue category can vary year over year. The current year estimate was adjusted based on potential code enforcement revenues. (9) The net reduction is primarily related to estimated water entitlement revenues related to a Developer Promissory Note. (10) Reduction based on updated contract estimates, and the use of a grant to support the annual Community Health and Human Service allocation. (11) Primarily reflects approximately $97,000 in Housing Element costs moved to the Operating Grant and General Plan Maintenance Fee Fund. (12) The projected difference is primarily related to position vacancies and the corresponding salary savings within the department. (13) Reflects cost associated with true-up of fire contract services and approximately $33,000 for a wildfire protection study. (14) Additional funds requested for temporary services and supplies to continue the ramp-up recreation programs, as well as rising utilities. (15) Primarily reflects a reduction in the transfer to the Local Water Project to be consistent with estimated Promissory Note proceeds. (16) Adjusted calculation to exclude costs associated with updated Housing Element contract.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 50 ends

FUND

CURRENT YEAR
BUDGET

MID-YEAR

ESTIMATE DIFFERENCE NOTES
04 - Hyperbaric Chamber 10,200 11,100 900 Update for estimated interest earnings 06 - State Franchise PEG 52,500 49,000 (3,500) General revenue update 07 - Library Building and Equip. Fund 3,570 3,000 (570) General revenue update 10 - Hospitality Improvement District 589,400 663,900 74,500 Increase in the MCTID pass-through tax rate 11 - Library Book Fund 40,500 54,492 13,992 Increase for anticipated donations and used book sales 12 - Fire Emergency Equipment Fund 21,900 23,403 1,503 General revenue update 15 - Housing Fund 5,000 93,995 88,995 Estimated loan repayment receipts 17 - Local Streets and Roads 760,678 835,500 74,822 Adjustment based on estimated Measure X tax performance 20 - RSTP-(TAMC) 1,124,738 1,082,602 (42,136) Reflects updates in reimbursements to align with project estimates, and funding for a project completed in prior year 27 - Lighthouse Fund 97,000 87,000 (10,000) Updated based on current estimate 28 - Senior Housing Fund 100 500 400 Update for estimated interest earnings 30 - Operating Grants 591,906 509,637 (82,269) Reduced based on grant funding received and billed in the prior year
31 - Operating Donations 1,250 1,700 450 Update for estimated interest earnings 34 - CDBG Grant Fund 7,500 75,000 67,500 Estimated loan repayment receipts 36 - Calhome Reuse 2,000 28,000 26,000 Update based on anticipated program revenues 43 - SLESF Fund 247,750 248,318 568 Update for estimated interest earnings 55 - General Plan Maint. Fee Fund 10,000 10,600 600 Update for estimated interest earnings 70 - Employee Benefit Fund 359,950 350,000 (9,950) Updated based on current program participation 71 - Workers Comp. Fund 730,000 543,000 (187,000) Adjustment for reimbursement billings booked as a revenue and receivable in prior year
72 - Liability Insurance Fund 722,500 1,087,000 364,500 Increase related to a transfer for the second half of separation agreement, and additional internal service charges
74 - Local Water Project 1,576,187 1,141,500 (434,687) Primarily related to reduction for transfers-in for promissory note proceeds
75 - Cemetery 656,500 654,265 (2,235) Increased interest earnings, net of reduced sale estimates 76 - Sewer Fund 4,436,000 4,040,500 (395,500) Primarily related to reduction of the transfers-in to repay the Sewer Fund/LWP Interfund Loan. This transfer aligns with the receipt of promissory note proceeds.
77 - Golf Fund 731,500 759,000 27,500 Projected lease revenue performance 78 - Sewer Lateral Loans 10,000 3,000 (7,000) Based on anticipated loan repayments and interest earnings 84 - American Rescue Plan Act -ARPA 3,000 15,000 12,000 Update for estimated interest earnings 85 - Library Trust Fund 10,000 11,000 1,000 Update for estimated interest earnings 86 - Cemetery Endowment Fund 110,000 111,900 1,900 Update for estimated interest earnings 90 - Yount Nonexpendable Fund 15,000 3,000 (12,000) Update for estimated interest earnings 93 - Koo Estate Donation - 457 457 Update for estimated interest earnings Grand Total 12,926,629 12,497,369 (429,260)

OTHER FUNDS - REVENUE ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 51 ends

FUND

AMENDED
BUDGET MID-YEAR EST. DIFFERENCE NOTES
04 - Hyperbaric Chamber $ 22,400 $ 22,932 $ 532 Update to align with proposed expenditures 07 - Library Building and Equip. Fund 81,208 101,208 20,000 To support additional book shelves and art displays 10 - Hospitality Improvement District 488,000 662,000 174,000 Increase in MCTID pass-through revenues, along with performance 11 - Library Book Fund 40,000 44,492 4,492 Update to align with proposed expenditures 15 - Housing Fund 204,776 208,054 3,278 Update to align with proposed expenditures 18 - Gas Tax Fund 439,543 441,032 1,489 Update to align with proposed expenditures 20 - RSTP-(TAMC) 1,124,738 1,042,480 (82,258) Decrease to reflect project completed in prior year and carry-forward adjustments
27 - Lighthouse Fund 186,414 167,673 (18,741) Salary adjustments for first half of year 30 - Operating Grants 591,896 509,638 (82,258) Grant funds expended in prior year; and update for remaining grants 40 - Poetry Promotion Fund 14,700 19,700 5,000 Update to align with proposed expenditures 43 - SLESF Fund 278,720 273,756 (4,964) Update to align with proposed expenditures 70 - Employee Benefit Fund 359,600 330,000 (29,600) Adjustment based on current expenditures and plan participation 71 - Workers Compensation Fund 730,992 769,566 38,574 Projected claims, net of a $100,000 Closed Session Compromise and Release Agreement
72 - Liability Insurance Fund 690,375 830,500 140,125 Reduction in routine claims, offset by transfer-in for the final payment associated with the Separation Agreement
74 - Local Water Project (LWP) Fund 1,636,449 1,159,949 (476,500) Budget included $625,187 in transfers for the Sewer/LWP Interfund Loan.

Adjustment based on estimated promissory note receipts and reduced utility expenses
75 - Cemetery Fund 684,119 704,746 20,627 Adjustment primarily relates to estimated increase in utility costs 76 - Sewer Fund 5,771,105 6,262,165 491,060 Increase of $456,000 related to the sewer-related portion of the David Ave. and FY 23/24 Street Rehab. Projects., along with misc. adjustments 77 - Golf Fund 695,598 705,098 9,500 Estimated increase in capital trust contributions, which are based on a percentage of lease revenues
Grand Total $ 14,040,633 $ 14,254,989 $ 214,356

OTHER FUNDS - EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 52 ends

ORDINANCE NO. xx-xxx

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AMENDING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2023-24
FACTS

1. The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget on June 21, 2023.

2. It is customary to amend the budget to adjust revenues and expenditures to reflect updated information since the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget.

3. The City Manager is recommending amendments to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget to reflect the City Council goals for the fiscal year budget.

4. The Council has determined it is appropriate to amend the approved budget for FY 2023-24.

5. Pursuant to Charter Article 15, an amendment of the budget must be approved by ordinance.

6. A summary of the Ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, was published on February 29, 2024.

7. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.

8. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an organizational or administrative activity 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. The foregoing facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 53 ends

SECTION 2. The revenue budget for the following funds is amended, as stated herein, which by this reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

FUND ADJUSTMENT
01 - General Fund 828,813
04 - Hyperbaric Chamber 900
06 - State Franchise PEG (3,500)
07 - Library Building and Equip. Fund (570)
10 - Hospitality Improvement District 74,500
11 - Library Book Fund 13,992
12 - Fire Emergency Equipment Fund 1,503
15 - Housing Fund 88,995
17 - Local Streets and Roads 74,822
20 - RSTP-(TAMC) (42,136)
27 - Lighthouse Fund (10,000)
28 - Senior Housing Fund 400
30 - Operating Grants (82,269)
31 - Operating Donations 450
34 - CDBG Grant Fund 67,500
36 - Calhome Reuse 26,000
43 - SLESF Fund 568
55 - General Plan Maint. Fee Fund 600
70 - Employee Benefit Fund (9,950)
71 - Workers Comp. Fund (187,000)
72 - Liability Insurance Fund 364,500
74 - Local Water Project (434,687)
75 - Cemetery (2,235)
76 - Sewer Fund (395,500)
77 - Golf Fund 27,500
78 - Sewer Lateral Loans (7,000)
84 - American Rescue Plan Act -ARPA 12,000
85 - Library Trust Fund 1,000
86 - Cemetery Endowment Fund 1,900
90 - Yount Nonexpendable Fund (12,000)
93 - Koo Estate Donation 457

REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 54 ends

SECTION 3. The expenditure budget for the following funds is amended, as stated herein. Which by reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

FUND DIFFERENCE
01 - General Fund (524,317)
04 - Hyperbaric Chamber $ 532
07 - Library Building and Equip. Fund 20,000
10 - Hospitality Improvement District 174,000
11 - Library Book Fund 4,492
15 - Housing Fund 3,278
18 - Gas Tax Fund 1,489
20 - RSTP-(TAMC) (82,258)
27 - Lighthouse Fund (18,741)
30 - Operating Grants (82,258)
40 - Poetry Promotion Fund 5,000
43 - SLESF Fund (4,964)
70 - Employee Benefit Fund (29,600)
71 - Workers Compensation Fund 38,574
72 - Liability Insurance Fund 140,125
74 - Local Water Project (LWP) Fund (476,500)
75 - Cemetery Fund 20,627
76 - Sewer Fund 491,060
77 - Golf Fund 9,500

EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 55 ends

SECTION 4. The Fiscal Year 2023/24 preliminary estimated fund balances based on this adjustment, are referenced herein (1):
(1) The estimated ending “available” fund balance for the enterprise funds, are as follows: Local Water Project at ($14,513); Cemetery Fund at $857,908; Sewer Fund at $5,608,548; and the Golf Fund at $610,735.

SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption hereof.

FUND

PRELIMINARY

BEGINNING FUND

BALANCE REVENUES EXPENDITURES
EST. ENDING FUND

BALANCE
01 - General Fund 14,815,979 $ 32,092,000 $ 33,593,659 $ 13,314,320 04 - Hyperbaric Chamber 31,469 11,100 22,932 19,637
06 - State Franchise PEG 91,066 49,000 81,000 59,066
07 - Library Building and Equipment 136,233 3,000 101,208 38,025 10 - Hospitality Improvement District 8,927 663,900 662,000 10,827 11 - Library Book Fund 33,376 54,492 44,492 43,376
12 - Fire Emergency Equipment Fund 171,430 23,403 22,000 172,833 15 - Housing Fund 373,039 93,995 208,054 258,980
17 - Local Streets and Roads 1,154,757 835,500 1,895,361 94,896 18 - Gas Tax Fund 180,685 416,317 441,032 155,970
20 - RSTP-(TAMC) (40,122) 1,082,602 1,042,480 0
27 - Lighthouse Fund 195,031 87,000 167,673 114,358
28 - Senior Housing Fund 10,339 500 - 10,839
30 - Operating Grants 683 509,637 509,638 682
31 - Operating Donations 64,475 1,700 - 66,175
34 - CDBG Grant Fund 490,203 75,000 520,000 45,203
36 - Calhome Reuse Fund 172,196 28,000 24,000 176,196
40 - Poetry Promotion 119,714 35,620 19,700 135,634
43 - SLESF Fund 98,236 248,318 273,756 72,798
55 - General Plan Maintenance Fee 32,550 10,600 - 43,150 70 - Employee Benefit Fund 93,657 350,000 330,000 113,657 71 - Workers Compensation Fund 286,266 543,000 769,566 59,700 72 - Liability Insurance Fund (250,965) 1,087,000 830,500 5,535 74 - Local Water PRoject 1,109,022 1,141,500 1,159,949 1,090,573 75 - Cemetery Fund 984,482 654,265 704,746 934,001
76 - Sewer Fund 22,925,363 4,040,500 6,262,165 20,703,698 77 - Golf Fund 3,684,291 759,000 705,098 3,738,193
78 - Sewer Lateral Loans 199,240 3,000 - 202,240
84 - American Rescue Plan Act-ARPA 1,074,164 15,000 1,063,136 26,028 85 - Library Trust Fund 522,441 11,000 - 533,441
86 - Cemetery Endowment Fund 1,967,327 111,900 - 2,079,227 90 - Yount Nonexpendable Fund 772,697 3,000 15,000 760,697 93 - Koo Estate Donation 15,642 457 16,099 (0)
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 56 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 57 ends

Agenda No. 7 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 23.76.021 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating the Membership of the Historic Resource Committee
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 23.76.021 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating the Membership of the Historic Resource Committee.

DISCUSSION
The City Council approved the first reading of the aforementioned ordinance at its February 21, 2024, regular meeting. There were no substantive changes between the first and second readings. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on February 29, 2024.

On December 20, 2023, the City Council directed the City Attorney to return to the City Council with an Ordinance for first reading to amend Municipal Code Section 23.76.021 including a reduction in the number of members of the Historic Resource Committee from seven members to five members because the specificity of Historic Resource Committee (HRC) member qualifications makes it difficult to recruit and appoint members to fill the committee. Reducing the number of members from seven to five will have no effect on the current HRC as there are two vacancies.

Current Version of Municipal Code Section 23.76.021 (a) (a) The historic resources committee shall consist of seven members having a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and the cultural resources of Pacific Grove. One of the members shall be a licensed architect with preservation experience, landscape architect, engineer, or architectural historian, one shall be a licensed general contractor with preservation experience, and one shall be a representative of the heritage society.

Proposed Amendment to Municipal Code Section 23.76.021 (a) Proposed amendments are shown below by deletion of all text shown in strikeout text (strikeout text) and the addition of all text shown in underscored text:

Chapter 23.76.021 Historic resources committee.
(a) The historic resources committee shall consist of seven five members having a demonstrated interest PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 58 ends

(a) The historic resources committee shall consist of seven five members having a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and the cultural resources of Pacific Grove. At least four members shall be residents registered to vote in the City of Pacific Grove.One of the members shall be a licensed architect with preservation experience, landscape architect, engineer, or architectural historian, one shall or be a licensed general contractor with preservation experience, and one shall be a representative of the heritage society. A member not registered to vote in the City of Pacific Grove shall have demonstrated architectural or general contractor experience in the city of Pacific Grove.

Summary of Reasons for Proposed Ordinance Based on December 20, 2023 Agenda Report by Mayor Peake.

The Proposed Ordinance includes a reduction in the number of members of the Historic Resource Committee from seven members to five members because the specificity of Historic Resource Committee (HRC) member qualifications makes it difficult to recruit and appoint members to fill the committee. Reducing the number of members from seven to five will have no effect on the current HRC as there are two vacancies.

Amending member qualifications will provide the flexibility to consider a wider range of applicants and have minimal impact on quality of HRC decisions.

Allowing a non-Pacific Grove resident with demonstrated architectural or general contractor experience in our city will facilitate knowledgeable professionals to serve on the HRC. Several local architects routinely work in Pacific Grove but are not residents and could fill this role.

Proposed amendments will align HRC size and qualifications with that of the Architectural review board which has similar permitting responsibilities.

OPTIONS
Discuss and take other action related to this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Proposed Ord Amd PGMC Section 23.76.021(a) Relating to HRC Membership PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 59 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Attachment 1
Historic Resources Committee Membership
ORDINANCE NO. 24-XXX

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING SECTION 23.76.021 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING MEMBERSHIP ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE FACTS

1. Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 23.76.021 currently provides for a Historic Resources Committee with seven members.

2. The Proposed Ordinance includes a reduction in the number of members of the Historic Resource Committee from seven members to five members because the specificity of Historic Resource Committee (HRC) member qualifications makes it difficult to recruit and appoint members to fill the committee.

3. Proposed amendments to Section 23.76.021 are shown below by deletion of all text shown in strikeout text (strikeout text) and the addition of all text shown in underscored text:

Chapter 23.76.021 Historic resources committee.
(a) The historic resources committee shall consist of seven five members having a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and the cultural resources of Pacific Grove. At least four members shall be residents registered to vote in the City of Pacific Grove. One of the members shall be a licensed architect with preservation experience, landscape architect, engineer, or architectural historian, one shall or be a licensed general contractor with preservation experience, and one shall be a representative of the heritage society. A member not registered to vote in the City of Pacific Grove shall have demonstrated architectural or general contractor experience in the city of Pacific Grove.

4. Reducing the number of members from seven to five will have no effect on the current HRC as there are two vacancies.

5. Amending member qualifications will provide the flexibility to consider a wider range of applicants and have minimal impact on quality of HRC decisions.

6. Allowing a non-City of Pacific Grove resident with demonstrated architectural or general contractor experience in the City will facilitate knowledgeable professionals to serve on the HRC. Several local architects routinely work in Pacific Grove but are not residents and could fill this role.

7. Proposed amendments will align HRC size and qualifications with that of the Architectural review board which has similar permitting responsibilities.

8. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 60 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing Facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in fully within the body of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. Section 23.76.021 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 23.76.021 Historic resources committee.
(a) The historic resources committee shall consist of five members having a demonstrated interest in and knowledge of historic preservation and the cultural resources of Pacific Grove.

At least four members shall be residents registered to vote in the City of Pacific Grove. One of the members shall be a licensed architect with preservation experience, landscape architect, engineer, or architectural historian, or be a licensed general contractor with preservation experience, and one shall be a representative of the heritage society. A member not registered to vote in the City of Pacific Grove shall have demonstrated architectural or general contractor experience in the city of Pacific Grove.

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. Severability. 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. In accordance with Article 15 of the City Charter, this Ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this ______ day of ______________, ______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 61 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 62 ends

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: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Housing Element Monthly Status Update
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
On December 20, 2023, City Council approved the first amendment to the contract with Rincon Consultants, initiating the preparation of the Housing Element Update (HEU), along with related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Subsequently, City Staff and Rincon Consultants continued/commenced work and provided the first monthly progress report update to Council on February 14, 2024. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:

January 26 – February 28, 2024: Staff and consultants' ongoing review and coordination of public comment (throughout the 30-day NOP public comment period) on the scope of the EIR.

February 15, 2024: Staff and consultants held the EIR Public Scoping Session with the Planning Commission to receive verbal comments on the scope of the EIR.

February 16, 2024: Internal staff review of the Program EIR Draft Project Description was completed for Rincon.

February 21, 2024: The City Manager provided a report to the City Council on the Unclassified sites in the HEU and related ballot initiative information. City Council received the report and provided direction to staff to remove the three Unclassified sites (totaling 497 units) from the HEU sites inventory and to identify alternative pathways to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation (1,125 units) plus a 20% buffer (totaling 1,272 new units planned for in the HEU).

February 23, 2024: An Internal Housing Element Team coordination meeting was held to discuss Council’s direction and next steps for finding alternative sites or rezoning/upzoning to accommodate the necessary housing unit capacity. Work on the EIR has been paused until a revised sites inventory to accommodate the loss of 497 units on the three Unclassified sites is identified and vetted through the Planning Commission and City Council.

Staff will provide a monthly status update to the Council throughout the process, leading to an adopted and certified Housing Element. For more information, please visit the Housing Element Webpage at the link below:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/housing/housing_element.php.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 63 ends

OPTIONS
N/A - This is information only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 64 ends

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: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: PGUSD & City of Pacific Grove MOU ELOP
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the City of Pacific Grove to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with Pacific Grove Unified School District for the purpose of creating a partnership to offer a free summer recreation camp through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program grant.

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
Pacific Grove Unified School District (PGUSD) has approached the City of Pacific Grove with an opportunity to work together to provide a free recreation summer camp through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) grant that has been awarded to the district. The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program grant from the state of California provides schools with funding to operate programs outside the instructional school day. PGUSD will partner with the City to provide a free camp program for the district's unduplicated pupil population. PGUSD will provide facilities and funding to support the expansion of the City’s current Summer Adventure Camp Program. The City of Pacific Grove Recreation Department will provide the programming, staff training and oversight for this program. This camp will be located at Robert H. Down Elementary School and will run up to 8 weeks from June 10-August 2, 2024. PGUSD and the City of Pacific Grove Recreation Department are looking at either a 7 or 8 week program. The final decision will take into account the 2024-2025 PGUSD Academic Calendar, the needs of Robert H Down staff and campus, and the student participants. Camp program hours will be Monday-Friday from 8:00 am-5:00 pm. Each week the program will serve up to 60 students. The final number of students will be dependent on the total number of staff hired for this program. PGUSD is assisting the City of Pacific Grove with recruitment efforts. A Memorandum of Understanding between Pacific Grove Unified School District and the City of Pacific Grove has been drafted. See attachment 1.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action

2. Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 65 ends

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The proposed Memorandum of Understanding between PGUSD and the City of Pacific Grove presented in this report outlines the terms of the fiscal arrangement and other types of support to be provided by each entity. A short summary of the fees section has been included here for consideration.

The proposed MOU will be effective June 1-August 30, 2024. PGUSD will pay for all students recruited by the district for the Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELOP) Summer Camp Program at a rate $240.30/child per week, for up to 60 students, for the duration of the 8-week program. The total payment for all 60 students for 8 weeks of this camp program will be $115,344 and will be paid directly to the City of Pacific Grove. The $240.30/child per week camp registration reflects the City of Pacific Grove fees to cover all staffing cost associated with the program. PGUSD will also be billed for any additional materials and supplies required for the ELOP Summer Camp Program which is currently estimated at $3,500.00.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
Attachments
PGUSD & City of Pacific Grove ELOP MOU 2024
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 66 ends

4857-2346-7616 v1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

PACIFIC GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
This Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is entered into between the Pacific Grove Unified School District (“District”) and The City of Pacific Grove (“City”) for the establishment of an Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program located at the Pacific Grove Youth Center, 302 16th Street Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (the “Youth Center”), Robert Down Elementary School, 485 Pine Ave., Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (the “RHD”), and the Pacific Grove Community Center, 515 Junipero Ave, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (the “Community Center”). Together, the sites listed in will be known as (the ”Facilities”). Together, the District and the City are referred to herein as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, the Community Recreation Act (California Education Code sections 10900 through 10914.5) authorizes school districts and cities to organize, promote, and conduct community recreation programs and activities to promote the health and general welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the California Civic Center Law (California Education Code sections 38130- 38138) establishes a civic center at every school for use by citizens for a variety of purposes, including recreation; and
WHEREAS, the District is the owner of real property, including facilities and Active Use Areas that are capable of being used for community recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property, including facilities and Active Use Areas that are capable of being used for community recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, under appropriate circumstances, these publicly held lands and facilities should be used most efficiently to maximize use and increase recreational opportunities for the community; and
WHEREAS, California Education Code section 10905 authorizes the governing bodies of any two or more public authorities may cooperate with each other to enter into agreements to promote the health and general welfare of the community and to enhance the recreational opportunities afforded to the community.

A. Term: The Term of this MOU shall be for the period June 1, 2024 through August 30, 2024.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 67 ends

4857-2346-7616 v1
B. Fees: The District shall pay for all District students recruited by the District for the Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELOP) Summer Camp Program. All fees associated with the District's ELOP City program will be paid at the rate of $240.30/child per week for up to 60 students for the 8 week program.

Any additional materials and supplies required to support the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program will be billed to the District by its pro rata share of use.

Supplies for the 2024 Summer program are estimated to be $3,500 The District payment per student per week shall constitute reimbursement to the City for the additional cost in overhead associated with the increased capacity of the City’s Summer Camp Program to accommodate the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program. The District has agreed to recruit additional Pacific Grove High School Students as chaperones, lifeguards, counselors etc. for the City’s Summer Camp Program, and the District will work directly with the students to fill out the online application required by the City.

The District will set up payment directly to the City, totaling $118,844 ($115,344 for tuition and $3,500 for supplies) for the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities 2024 Summer Camp Program.

C. Use: The District shall have joint use of all Facilities associated with the City’s Summer Camp Program for the District’s expansion of the program known as Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program.

The City shall have joint use of all Facilities associated with the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program.

The Facilities will be used to conduct both the City’s Summer Camp Program and the District’s expansion of the program known as Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program.

The District will offer their program slots to the unduplicated pupil population in grades TK-6. The District will give the exact number of students enrolled in the program following the District’s lottery to be held prior to May 1, 2023.

D. Termination: This Agreement will be in effect for the fiscal year 2022- 2023 and 2023-24, expiring as specified above. Both Parties have a right to PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 68 ends

4857-2346-7616 v1
terminate the Agreement within (30) days written notice to either party without cause or for any reason.

E. Utilities Services: Gas, electricity and water usage will not be assessed by either party associated with this Agreement.

F. Waste: All waste associated with the City’s Summer Camp Program and the District’s expansion of the program known as Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program will be isolated to each of the defined Facilities. The District will provide custodial support staff to dispose of all waste at its real property location (RHD), and the City will provide custodial support staff to dispose of all waste at its real property location(s).

G. Nuisance: The District agrees that, in connection with its use of the Facilities, The District will not commit any public or private nuisance or any other act or thing which might or would reasonably be construed to disturb the quiet enjoyment of nearby property.

The City agrees that, in connection with its use of the Facilities, The City will not commit any public or private nuisance or any other act or thing which might or would reasonably be construed to disturb the quiet enjoyment of nearby property.

H. Fingerprinting/Background Checks: All District staff in direct contact with children will be required to be fingerprinted by the District via livescan at their sole expense. All City staff in direct contact with children will be required to be fingerprinted via livescan by the City at their sole expense.

I. Repairs: Outside of the normal Maintenance Obligations provided by the District, the District agrees to maintain all real property owned Facilities in good condition. All repairs and upgrades to the Facilities are at the expense of the District, unless otherwise agreed upon by both Parties.

Outside of the normal Maintenance Obligations provided by the City, the City agrees to maintain all real property owned Facilities in good condition. All repairs and upgrades to the Facilities are at the expense of the City, unless otherwise agreed upon by both Parties.

J. Insurance: The District and the City shall both carry and maintain, during the entire term hereof, at its own cost and expense, the following types of insurance:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 69 ends

4857-2346-7616 v1

1. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in an amount no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate.

2. Comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the language that “District, its officers and employees”, is named as additional insured for all liability arising out of the operations in the performance of this MOU agreement.

3. Comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the language that “the City, its officers and employees”, is named as additional insured for all liability arising out of the operations in the performance of this MOU agreement.

4. The additional insured endorsement must be noted on a separate form which accompanies the Certificate of Insurance (COI).

K. Hold Harmless: The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District and its agents, representatives, officers, the District’s, employees, Board of Trustees, members of the Board of Trustees (collectively, the “District Parties”), from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, suits and actions, and expenses (including, but not limited to attorney fees and costs including fees of the District) of any kind, nature and description (collectively, the “Claims”) directly or indirectly arising out of, connected with, or resulting from any act, error, omission, negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, subcontractors, employees, material or equipment suppliers, invitees, or licensees (collectively, the “the City Parties”) in the performance of or failure to perform the City’s or the City Parties’ obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to the City’s or the City Parties’ use of District sites, performance of the Services, breach of any of the representations or warranties contained in this Agreement, or for injury to or death of persons or damage to property or delay or damage to the District or the District Parties. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to a party, person, or entity described in this paragraph. The indemnification provided for in this Section includes, without limitation to the foregoing, claims that may be made against District by any taxing authority asserting that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement, and any claims made against District alleging civil rights violations by the City or the City Parties under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 70 ends

4857-2346-7616 v1
The District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, representatives, officers, the City’s, employees, Mayor, City Council, members of the City Council (collectively, the “City Parties”), from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, suits and actions, and expenses (including, but not limited to attorney fees and costs including fees of the City) of any kind, nature and description (collectively, the “Claims”) directly or indirectly arising out of, connected with, or resulting from any act, error, omission, negligence, or willful misconduct of the District, its agents, subcontractors, employees, material or equipment suppliers, invitees, or licensees (collectively, the “the District Parties”) in the performance of or failure to perform the District’s or the District Parties’ obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to the District’s or the District Parties’ use of City sites, performance of the Services, breach of any of the representations or warranties contained in this Agreement, or for injury to or death of persons or damage to property or delay or damage to the City or the City Parties. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to a party, person, or entity described in this paragraph. The indemnification provided for in this Section includes, without limitation to the foregoing, claims that may be made against City by any taxing authority asserting that an employeremployee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement, and any claims made against City alleging civil rights violations by the District or the District Parties under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

L. Parking: the City shall have access to the parking lots located at the real property Facilities owned by the District during the time the City is using the Facilities.

PACIFIC GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:_ Date: _
Title:

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 71 ends

4857-2346-7616 v1
By:_ Date:

Title:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 72 ends

Agenda No. 9 B

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: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Contract Award -Phase 9 Waster Water Collection System Improvements CEQA: Initial Study, Negative Declaration

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Phase 9 Waster Water Collection System Improvements Project in an amount not to exceed $717,280 plus an 15% contingency.

1. 2. Alternatively, take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
As part of the FY21/22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the multi-year Phase 9 Waster Water Collection System Improvement Project (CIP22-03) was approved utilizing Sewer Funds.

The purpose of the project is to address known sewer deficiencies that have been identified via videoing and maintenance, in order to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents of Pacific Grove.

The project will address identified sewer deficiencies at the following 6 locations.

1. Bently St, from Short to Heacock Ave,

2. Cypress Ave, between Laurel Ave and Short St,

3. Railroad Way, from Jewell Ave to Pico Ave,

4. Asilomar Dunes Easement, between Sunset Dr and Asilomar Ave, and

5. Arena Ave, from Sunset Dr to Asilomar Ave, and

6. 17 Mile Dr at Weldon Grove Pl.

The project Coastal Development Permit and project IS/ND have been approved by the City Council (as noted below in the Project Background and Timeline section). The purpose of this item is to request the formal award of a contract following the bid process.

Project Background and Timeline
This multi-year project has undergone significant milestones to reach the contract award phase.

Included below is a high-level overview of the project milestones to-date.

FY21/22 (July 1, 2021 –June 30, 2022)- The project underwent the project development phase including investigation work (videoing) and engineering.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 73 ends

September 5, 2022- Staff began the Initial Study/Negative Declaration process with Harris & Associates, Inc.

November 30, 2022- A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application was filed for repairs that fall within the Coastal Zone; locations include Railroad Way, Asilomar Dunes, and Arena Ave (locations 3, 4, and 5 noted above).

May 1, 2023 - The IS/ND was finalized in May 2023.

July 13, 2023 - The item was subsequently brought forward to the Planning Commission (PC), at their July 13, 2023, meeting. The PC considered the project and voted 6 –1 (6 yes and 1 no) to adopt the IS/ND and approve the proposed project (CDP23-0318).

July 17, 2023 – An appeal of the PC decision to adopt the IS/ND and approve the project was submitted.

September 6, 2023 – The appeal was brought forward to the City Council. The City Council voted 7-0 to deny the appeal, adopt the IS/ND and approve CDP 22-0318.

September 18, 2023 – An appeal of the City Council’s decision was filed with the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

November 15, 2023 – The CCC heard the appeal and found no substantial issue; the CCC upheld the local approval.

December 13, 2023- A notice inviting sealed bids for the wastewater collect system Phase 9 project was issued.

January 17, 2024 – The bid period closed; 6 bids were received. Monterey Peninsula Engineer was qualified as the lowest bidder.

Scope of Work
The purpose of the project is to address known sewer deficiencies that have been identified via videoing and maintenance, in order to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents of Pacific Grove.

The scope of work for the project includes:

Repair and replacement of 1,217 LF of sewer pipeline via trenching Replacement of 332 LF of sewer pipeline via pipe bursting Construction of 4 new manholes
Reconstruction of 6 manholes
1 spot repair, and
Segments of pavement restoration following sewer work
Bid Process
Following the receipt of a CDP and completion of environmental review process, the project was put out to bid on December 13, 2023. The bid period closed on January 17, 2024. 6 bids were received.

Company Bid Amount
Monterey Peninsula Engineering $717,280
Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. $744,480
Coastal Paving & Excavating $776,925
Manzo Construction, Inc. $835,220
California Trenchless $973,536
Anderson Pacific $1,024,630
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 74 ends

Coastal Permitting & Environmental
As noted above in the timeline CDP 22-0318 was issued.

The PC, City Council and CCC also approved the project Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) which analyzed the potential effects of the project on the surrounding environment and found that the project, as proposed and conditioned, would have less than significant or no impacts in all resource areas.

All construction mitigation measures will be adhered to.

Archeological Resources
The proposed project involves ground disturbance in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Donna Beddow; Harris & Associates; October 2022) and included as an element of the CDP and IS/ND.

In compliance with the issued CDP, the City will have archaeological and tribal monitoring during all ground disturbing activities within the coastal zone.

Construction Contract & Timeline
If approved, City staff will harness the standard construction contract approved by the City’s insurer, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA).

Following contract execution, a pre-construction meeting will be held to determine a project schedule.

Updates on construction timelines will be provided to the Council and posted to the Clear Gov project page: https://pacificgrove-ca.cleargov.com/projects.

OPTIONS

1. Approve the contract award
Do not approve the contract award
Failure to approve the contract will result in continued degradation of deficient sewer infrastructure

2. 3. Provide alternative direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The total approved project budget is $1,295,106, derived from the Sewer Fund.

There is sufficient project funding to accommodate construction, including the construction contract and contingency, $842,872, and archeological and tribal monitoring for ground disturbance within the coastal zone.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Approved
Budget
$1,295,106
Expended
to-date
$105,577.67
Remaining
Budget
$1,189,528.33
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 75 ends

Agenda No. 9 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment #2 for Professional Contract Planner Services with Harris & Associates, Inc.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment #2 to Professional Services Agreement with Harris & Associates, Inc. not to exceed $381,560 to:

Allow continuation of current contract planner staffing services through June 30, 2024 for Fiscal Year 23-24 ($87,840); and
Provide contract planner staffing services for Fiscal Year 24-25 ($293,720).

DISCUSSION
In 2021, the City executed an agreement with Harris & Associates, Inc. (Harris) for contract planning consulting services to backfill vacant planning positions within the Community Development Department (CDD). The contract was amended and extended most recently through June 30, 2024 (Amendment #1). Due to ongoing workload within the Department and limited staff resources, Staff is seeking additional budget to augment the remainder of FY 23-24 as well as budget to continue the contract planning consulting services throughout FY 24-25.

Harris has been providing exemplary in-person planning consulting service to the City by serving as a trusted urban planning subject matter expert. Harris provides project management for complex project entitlement applications, Coastal Development Permit (CDP) applications, and appeals. Harris is also managing the environmental impact report (EIR) for the City’s Housing Element Update.

The previous agreement allowed for up to four (4) days/32 hours per week, however only budgeted for 24 hours per week. Due to the lack of full funding for the year, the remaining budget will run out on approximately March 8, 2024. This is similar to previous years when the Harris contract budget was exhausted ahead of the end of the fiscal year.

Staff is seeking a budget amendment of $87,840 to continue the current contract planning consulting services, at 32 hours per week, through June 30, 2024.

In order to provide business continuity and ensure adequate staff resources for project applications and PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 76 ends

the Housing Element Update EIR, it is recommended that the City continue to contract with Harris for the provision of planning consulting services. Staff proposes to extend the contract through June 30, 2025 and fully fund the contract at 32 hours per week for the Contract Senior Planner in addition to the one (1) hour per month for the Project Manager. The budget to fund the full FY24-25 contract is $293,720.

OPTIONS
Take no action. This would result in the conclusion of the Harris contract services to the City and would severely impact the ability of CDD to meet statutory project timelines and current service delivery levels. This would also impact the schedule for the Housing Element Update EIR

1. Provide alternative direction, such as authorizing the contract amendment for a different length of time or dollar amount.

2. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

For FY 2023-24, the $87,840 will be covered by recently approved mid-year budget adjustments and other funds available within the current budget. No additional general fund appropriation is required.

For FY 2024-25, an appropriation of $293,720 will be needed to fund the services provided under this agreement. If approved, these amounts will be incorporated into the proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Harris Planning Consulting Services Contract Amendment #2 PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 77 ends

AMENDMENT #2

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH HARRIS & ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) and Harris & Associates, Inc. (“Contractor”) entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City and Contractor desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. The Agreement is amended as follows:

1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. The City hereby engages CONTRACTOR to perform, and CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to perform, the services described in Exhibit A in conformity with the terms of this Agreement. The services are generally described as follows: Provide contract planning services.

2. PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $724,705.00.

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2025, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both CONTRACTOR and City and with City signing last, and CONTRACTOR may not commence work before City signs this Agreement. B. All other terms of the Agreement remain the same.

Dated: ____________________
Dated: _____________________
Dated: _____________________
________________________________
Kate Elliott, Director, Environmental Planning +
Compliance
________________________________
Karen Vaughn, Community Development
Director
_________________________________
Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director
Dated: ____________________
Dated: _____________________
________________________________
Brian Pierik, City Attorney
_________________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 78 ends

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES / PAYMENT PROVISIONS
CONTRACTOR shall assign an individual to provide contract planning consulting and project management services commensurate with the specialized skills and experience of a senior level planner, (“contract planning consultant”) as approved by the City Manager and/or Director of Community Development. The contract planning consultant will provide in-person (City Hall) and/or remote contract planning consulting services (as approved by the Director of Community Development) to supplement the City’s planning operations for complex projects requiring the contract planning consultant’s expertise.

The contract planning consultant will provide high-level planning support services, on a project-by-project basis, up to four (4) days (32 hours) per week, as determined by the City Manager and/or Director of Community Development. Assigned work may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
• High-level project review
• Preparing agenda report/resolutions and ordinances related to assigned projects • Planning project management for complex or controversial development applications • Management of environmental determinations and reports • Public hearing support related to assigned projects
City shall pay CONTRACTOR $175 per hour for existing senior planner staffing support services at a discounted rate, and $210 per hour for project manager contract management. Project management services are anticipated to require one (1) hour per month. Payment shall be made by City after submittal of an invoice from CONTRACTOR itemizing the costs incurred by City.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 79 ends

of 10
Updated 06/20/22

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (OVER $40,000)1
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter “City”) and Harris & Associates, Inc., (hereinafter “CONTRACTOR”).

In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both CONTRACTOR and City and with City signing last, and CONTRACTOR may not commence work before City signs this Agreement.

4. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS/EXHIBITS. The following attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference and constitute a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Scope of Services / Payment Provisions

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

5.01. CONTRACTOR warrants that CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR’s agents, employees, and subcontractors performing services under this Agreement are specially trained, experienced, competent, and appropriately licensed to perform the work and deliver the services required under this Agreement and are not employees of the City, or immediate family of an employee of the City.

5.02. CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, and subcontractors shall perform all work in a safe and skillful manner and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. All work performed under this Agreement that is required by law to be performed or supervised by licensed personnel shall be performed in accordance with such licensing requirements.

5.03. CONTRACTOR shall furnish, at its own expense, all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall not use City premises, property (including equipment, instruments, or supplies) or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.

6. PAYMENT CONDITIONS.

6.01. CONTRACTOR shall submit to the Contract Administrator an invoice on a form acceptable to City. If not otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR may submit such invoice monthly or 1 Approved by the Pacific Grove City Council on June 15, 2022.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 80 ends

at the completion of each phase of the project, as provided on page 6 of the proposal, but in any event, not later than 30 days after completion of services. The invoice shall set forth the amounts claimed by CONTRACTOR for the previous period, together
1 PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 81 ends

2 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
with an itemized basis for the amounts claimed, and such other information pertinent to the invoice as the City may require. The Contract Administrator or his or her designee shall certify the invoice, either in the requested amount or in such other amount as the City approves in conformity with this Agreement, and shall promptly submit such invoice to the City Auditor-Controller for payment. The City Auditor-Controller shall pay the amount certified within 30 days of receiving the certified invoice.

6.02. CONTRACTOR shall not receive reimbursement for travel.

6.03. All payments by the City will be made by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

CONTRACTOR will provide the City with its bank ABA number, account number and designation of the account to which such EFT shall be made. CONTRACTOR will be responsible for notifying the City when CONTRACTOR’s EFT information changes. Payments shall be for the invoiced amount, with no retention.

7. TERMINATION.

7.01. During the term of this Agreement, the City may terminate the Agreement, with or without cause, by giving written notice of termination to the CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination. Such notice shall set forth the effective date of termination. In the event of such termination, CONTRACTOR shall cease immediately all work in progress.

7.02. CONTRACTOR may terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty (30) days' written notice of termination to City.

7.03. If either CONTRACTOR or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either CONTRACTOR or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice.

7.04. Upon termination of this Agreement by either CONTRACTOR or City, all property belonging exclusively to City which is in CONTRACTOR’s possession shall be returned to City.

CONTRACTOR shall furnish to City a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by CONTRACTOR, prepared as set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement. This final invoice shall be reviewed and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement.

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

8.01. As respects all acts or omissions which do not arise directly out of the performance of professional services, including but not limited to those acts or omissions normally covered by general and automobile liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses whatsoever (including damages to property and injuries to or death of persons, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees) occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims, liabilities, and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation for damage, injury, or death to the extent caused by CONTRACTOR’s negligence, negligent acts, errors or omissions. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

9. INSURANCE.

9.01. Insurance Coverage Requirements: Without limiting CONTRACTOR’s duty to indemnify, CONTRACTOR shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 82 ends

3 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
Commercial general liability insurance, no less broad than Insurance Services Office (ISO) CG 00 01, including but not limited to premises and operations, including coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, Personal Injury, Contractual Liability, Broadform Property Damage, Independent Contractors, Products/Completed Operations, with minimum limits: $1,000,000 per Occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate; $2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate. The required limits may be provided by a combination of General Liability Insurance and Commercial Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance. If CONTRACTOR maintains higher limits than the specified minimum limits, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by CONTRACTOR.
❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Business automobile liability insurance, covering all motor vehicles, including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired vehicles, used in providing services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Workers’ Compensation Insurance, if CONTRACTOR employs others in the performance of this Agreement, in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with Employer’s Liability limits not less than $1,000,000 each person, $1,000,000 each accident and $1,000,000 each disease. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Professional liability insurance, if required for the professional services being provided, (e.g., those persons authorized by a license to engage in a business or profession regulated by the California Business and Professions Code), in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate, to cover liability for malpractice or errors or omissions made in the course of rendering professional services. If professional liability insurance is written on a “claims-made” basis rather than an occurrence basis, the retroactive date shall be no later than the commencement of the work. Coverage applicable to the work performed under this Agreement shall be continued for three (3) years after completion of the work. Such continuation coverage may be provided by one of the following: (1) renewal of the existing policy; (2) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (3) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the work under this Agreement. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

9.02. Other Insurance Requirements. All insurance required by this Agreement shall be with a company acceptable to the City and issued and executed by an admitted insurer authorized to transact Insurance business in the State of California. Unless otherwise specified by this Agreement, all such insurance shall be written on an occurrence basis, or, if the policy is not written on an occurrence basis, such policy with the coverage required herein shall continue in effect for a period of three years following the date CONTRACTOR completes its performance of services under this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, CONTRACTOR shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should CONTRACTOR fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City may procure such insurance at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost and expense.

Commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall provide an endorsement naming the City of Pacific Grove, its officers, agents, and employees as Additional Insureds with respect to liability arising out of the CONTRACTOR’S work, including ongoing and completed operations, and shall further provide that PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 83 ends

4 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
such insurance is primary insurance to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and that the insurance of the Additional Insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by the CONTRACTOR’S insurance. The required endorsement form for Commercial General Liability Additional Insured is ISO Form CG 20 10 11-85 or CG 20 10 10 01 in tandem with CG 20 37 10 01 (2000). The required endorsement form for Automobile Additional Insured endorsement is ISO Form CA 20 48 02 99.

The general liability policy shall cover inter-insured suits and include a “separation of Insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately.

CONTRACTOR shall provide to City an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

Prior to the execution of this Agreement by the City, CONTRACTOR shall file certificates of insurance with the City’s contract administrator and City’s Contracts/Purchasing Division, showing that the CONTRACTOR has in effect the insurance required by this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance within five calendar days after any change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file. Acceptance or approval of insurance shall in no way modify or change the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.

CONTRACTOR shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain in force the insurance coverage required under this Agreement and shall send, without demand by City, annual certificates to City’s Contract Administrator and City’s Contracts/Purchasing Division. If the certificate is not received by the expiration date, City shall notify CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR shall have five calendar days to send in the certificate, evidencing no lapse in coverage during the interim. Failure by CONTRACTOR to maintain such insurance is a default of this Agreement which entitles City, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement immediately.

10. RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY.

10.01. Confidentiality. CONTRACTOR and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors shall comply with any and all federal, state, and local laws which provide for the confidentiality of records and other information. CONTRACTOR shall not disclose any confidential records or other confidential information received from the City or prepared in connection with the performance of this Agreement, unless City specifically permits CONTRACTOR to disclose such records or information.

CONTRACTOR shall promptly transmit to City any and all requests for disclosure of any such confidential records or information. CONTRACTOR shall not use any confidential information gained by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement except for the sole purpose of carrying out CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Agreement.

10.02. City Records. When this Agreement expires or terminates, CONTRACTOR shall return to City any City records which CONTRACTOR used or received from City to perform services under this Agreement.

10.03. Maintenance of Records. CONTRACTOR shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and City rules and regulations related to services performed under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain such records for a period of at least three years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this Agreement is pending at the end of the three-year period, then CONTRACTOR shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

10.04. Access to and Audit of Records. The City shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 84 ends

5 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
related to services provided under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of the City or as part of any audit of the City, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

10.05. Royalties and Inventions. City shall have a royalty-free, exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, and use, and authorize others to do so, all original computer programs, writings, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, and other works of similar nature produced in the course of or under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not publish any such material without the prior written approval of City.

11. NON-DISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR, and its subcontractors, shall not unlawfully discriminate against any person because of race, religious creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age (over 40), or sexual orientation, either in CONTRACTOR’s employment practices or in the furnishing of services to recipients. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of its employees and applicants for employment and all persons receiving and requesting services are free of such discrimination.

CONTRACTOR and any subcontractor shall, in the performance of this Agreement, fully comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination. The provision of services primarily or exclusively to such target population as may be designated in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be prohibited discrimination.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS OF STATE OR FEDERAL GRANT. If this Agreement has been or will be funded with monies received by the City pursuant to a contract with the state or federal government in which the City is the grantee, CONTRACTOR will comply with all the provisions of said contract, to the extent applicable to CONTRACTOR as a subgrantee under said contract, and said provisions shall be deemed a part of this Agreement, as though fully set forth herein. Upon request, City will deliver a copy of said contract to CONTRACTOR, at no cost to CONTRACTOR.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. In the performance of work, duties, and obligations under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR is at all times acting and performing as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. No offer or obligation of permanent employment with the City or particular City department or agency is intended in any manner, and CONTRACTOR shall not become entitled by virtue of this Agreement to receive from City any form of employee benefits including but not limited to sick leave, vacation, retirement benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, insurance or disability benefits.

CONTRACTOR shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including federal and state income taxes and social security, arising out of CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement.

In connection therewith, CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify, and hold City harmless from any and all liability which City may incur because of CONTRACTOR’s failure to pay such taxes.

14. NOTICES. Notices required under this Agreement shall be delivered personally or by first-class, postage pre-paid mail to the City’s and CONTRACTOR’S contract administrators at the addresses listed below:

FOR CITY: FOR CONTRACTOR:

John Kuehl, Interim Director
Community Development Department
Kate Elliott, Director Cc:

David Mack, Joseph Sidor
Name and Title Name and Title
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 85 ends

6 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
City of Pacific Grove 300
Forest Avenue
Harris & Associates, Inc. 450
Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103
Phone Phone

15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

15.01. Conflict of Interest. CONTRACTOR represents that it presently has no interest and agrees not to acquire any interest during the term of this Agreement which would directly or indirectly conflict in any manner or to any degree with the full and complete performance of the professional services required to be rendered under this Agreement.

15.02. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by an instrument in writing signed by the City and the CONTRACTOR.

15.03. Waiver. Any waiver of any terms and conditions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the City and the CONTRACTOR. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this Agreement.

15.04. Contractor. The term “CONTRACTOR” as used in this Agreement includes CONTRACTOR’s officers, agents, and employees acting on CONTRACTOR’s behalf in the performance of this Agreement.

15.05. Disputes. CONTRACTOR shall continue to perform under this Agreement during any dispute. Contractor and the CITY hereby agree to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes as quickly as possible. In the event any dispute arising from or related to this Agreement results in litigation or arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees, expenses for expert witnesses (whether or not called to testify), expenses for accountants or appraisers (whether or not called to testify), and other related expenses. Recovery of these expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.

15.06. Assignment and Subcontracting. The CONTRACTOR shall not assign, sell, or otherwise transfer its interest or obligations in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. None of the services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Notwithstanding any such subcontract, CONTRACTOR shall continue to be liable for the performance of all requirements of this Agreement.

15.07. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and the rights, privileges, duties, and obligations of the City and CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, to the extent assignable or delegable, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns, and heirs.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Salinas, CA 93940
Address Address
(831) 648-3127 (831) 789-8670
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 86 ends

7 of 10
Updated 06/20/22

15.08. Compliance with Applicable Law. The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this Agreement.

15.09. Headings. The headings are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret the terms of this Agreement.

15.10. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in each and all of the provisions of this Agreement.

15.11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.

15.12. Non-exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and CONTRACTOR expressly reserve the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.

15.13. Construction of Agreement. The City and CONTRACTOR agree that each party has fully participated in the review and revision of this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement.

15.14. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. By executing this Agreement, the City and CONTRACTOR also consent and agree that any electronic signature, as defined by Civil Code § 1633.2(h), affixed thereon shall have the full force and effect as a wet or manual signature.

15.15. Authority. Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City or the CONTRACTOR represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of such party and bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

15.16. Integration. This Agreement, including the exhibits any documents incorporated by reference, represent the entire Agreement between the City and the CONTRACTOR with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between the City and the CONTRACTOR as of the effective date of this Agreement, which is the date that the City signs the Agreement.

15.17. Interpretation of Conflicting Provisions. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions of any exhibit or other attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and control.

15.18. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in the Contract are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the Contract for any cause. If a part of this Contract is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Contract is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 87 ends

8 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
This space is left blank, intentionally.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

CONTRACTOR
By: Harris &
Associates, Inc.

Contractor’s Business Name*
Date:

By: (Signature of Chair, President, or
Vice-President)*
By:

Diane Sandman, Vice President, EPC
Name and Title
Date:

Date:

By:
(Signature of Secretary, Asst. Secretary, CFO, or
Approved as to Form Asst.

Treasurer)*
By:

Name and Title
Date:
2Date:

By:

Date:

By:

City Agreement Number: ______________________________.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
City Mayor
Department Head
City Attorney
Approved as to Fiscal Provisions
Finance
Approved as to Liability Provisions 3
Risk Management
Date:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 88 ends

9 of 10
Updated 06/20/22
2 Approval by Finance necessary only if financial questions or issues raised in Council approval of agreement. 3 Approval by Risk Management is necessary only if changes are made in paragraph 8 or 9. *INSTRUCTIONS: If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, including limited liability and non-profit corporations, the full legal name of the corporation shall be set forth above together with the signatures of two specified officers. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, the name of the partnership shall be set forth above together with the signature of a partner who has authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the partnership. If CONTRACTOR is contracting in an individual capacity, the individual shall set forth the name of the business, if any, and shall personally sign the Agreement.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 89 ends

10 of 10
Updated 06/20/22

EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES / PAYMENT PROVISIONS
CONTRACTOR shall provide contract planning services provided by a senior planner, as approved by the City Manager and/or Director of Community Development. The planner will provide in-person (City Hall) and/or remote contract planning services (as approved by the Director of Community Development) to support City planning staff. The planner will provide planning support up to three (3) days (24 hours) per week, as determined by the City Manager and/or Director of Community Development. Duties may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
• Customer service/counter support
• Phone calls and email correspondence
• Ministerial and discretionary project review
• Staff report/resolution and ordinance preparation
• Current planning support including large, controversial development applications • Public hearing support
City shall pay CONTRACTOR $165 per hour for Senior Planner staffing support services, and $190 per hour for Project Manager contract management. Project management services are anticipated to require one (1) hour per month. Payment shall be made by City after submittal of an invoice from CONTRACTOR itemizing the costs incurred by City.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 90 ends

Agenda No. 11 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Regarding Order of Agenda
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 and introduce an Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Regarding Order of Agenda;

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
On February 14, 2024, the City Council gave direction to the City Attorney to return to the Council with an Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.050 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Order of Agenda to include language regarding posting an agenda for special meetings not less than 24 hours before the special meeting.

A. Current Version of Section 2.04.050 (a)
“2.04.050 Agenda and consideration of unlisted matters. a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular and special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting.

B. Proposed Amendments to Section 2.04.050 (a)
Revise Section 2.04.050 (a) to add the underlined text
“(a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular council meeting and not less than 24 hours before any special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting.” The Ordinance attached to this Agenda Report would amend Section 2.04.050 (a) to include language PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 91 ends

The Ordinance attached to this Agenda Report would amend Section 2.04.050 (a) to include language regarding posting an agenda for special meetings not less than 24 hours before the special meeting.

OPTIONS
Other actions as directed by the City Council related to this agenda item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Proposed Ordinance Amending PGMC Section 2.04.050 (a)
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 92 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.050 (a)

OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING ORDER OF AGENDA
FACTS

1. On February 14, 2024, the City Council gave direction to the City Attorney to return to the Council with an Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Order of Agenda to include language regarding posting an agenda for special meetings not less than 24 hours before the special meeting.

2. This Ordinance will amend Section 2.04.050 (a) by adding language regarding posting an agenda for special meetings not less than 24 hours before the special meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing Facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in fully within the body of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the underlined language:
“(a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular council meeting and not less than 24 hours before any special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting.”
SECTION 3. City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.

Section 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following its passage and adoption.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 93 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6
th day of March 2024 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

1. PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 94 ends

Agenda No. 12 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: March 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Request Direction by Council to City Manager to Issue a Request for Proposal for a Demographer in Connection with the California Voting Rights Act CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to:

1. Direct City Manager to issue a Request for Proposal for a qualified demographer to study the demographics of the City including:
a. The population of the City and its various racial and ethnic groups under the 2020 Census. b. The most recent estimates of the proportion of eligible voters in the various racial and ethnic groups in the City.
c. Estimate of the socio-economic characteristics of the various racial and ethnic groups in the City.
d. The criteria governing the design of electoral districts for the election of City Council members.e. A proposed timeline for the transition to by-district elections should the City Council decide upon that course of action.

2. Direct City Manager to return to the City Council with the demographer’s report for discussion and further direction.

DISCUSSION
A. Letter from League of United Latin American Citizens On August 25, 2022, the City of Pacific Grove received a letter from Andrew Sandoval on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) The letter included a demand that the City change its at-large voting system to a by-district voting system for city council elections. (“LULAC Letter” Attachment 1) The LULAC Letter was posted on the City’s website following receipt.

The case of Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica was pending at the time of receipt of the LULAC letter. The California Supreme has since issued its decision and the status of the Santa Monica case is discussed below.

The LULAC Letter asserts that changing to by-district elections would avoid a potential violation of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), protect the City from litigation under the CVRA, be consistent with the trend in California and Monterey County for cities and other jurisdictions to transition to PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 95 ends

by-district elections, and improve the accountability and responsiveness of the City’s elected officials.

In a by-district electoral system, the City is divided into districts of approximately equal population and only the voters residing in each district may vote for candidates for City Council for that district. Those candidates themselves must also be residents and voters of that district. In the current at-large voting electoral system, all voters in the City are entitled to vote for all candidates running for the City Council.

B. California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”)
The CVRA was enacted in 2001, Elections Code §§ 14025 - 14032. (Attachment 2) The CVRA applies only to at-large electoral systems. The CVRA alters established different standards of proof and defenses than exist under the federal Voting Rights Act, making it easier for plaintiffs to challenge the electoral system of any city or other jurisdiction that does not elect its governing board by-district. For example, under the CVRA, a plaintiff is not required to prove that by changing the districts that there will be a least one district which has a majority of minority voters.

Importantly, the CVRA also expands the ability of plaintiffs to recover their attorneys’ fees and expenses, making awards mandatory if plaintiffs prevail. In contrast, defendants, even if successful, cannot recover either attorneys’ fees or costs.

Importantly, even if the City were to successfully defend itself against a CVRA lawsuit, nothing prevents a different set of plaintiffs from filing a new CVRA demand against the City potentially plunging the City into litigation again. The only absolute protection for the City against a lawsuit under the CVRA is the implementation of single-member by-district elections.

The CVRA prohibits at-large electoral systems that impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class. Plaintiffs in a CVRA case must prove that racially polarized voting occurs in specified elections.

C. Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica The California Supreme Court recently ruled in Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal. 5th 292 (2023) (see Attachment 3), that plaintiffs must also prove that the combination of at-large voting and voting patterns reflecting racial polarization results in the dilution of the ability of protected class voters to elect chosen candidate. In other words, plaintiffs must prove that they would have the opportunity to elect chosen candidates in a legal alternative electoral system such as a by-district system or alternatives that may be available in charter cities (e.g., cumulative voting ranked choice voting; limited voting, etc.).

The Santa Monica case has been remanded to the trial court for consideration of the dilution issue under the standard set in the Supreme Court’s opinion. Given the flexibility of this standard, there is no “bright-line” percentage beneath which an action under the CVRA cannot be sustained. Even a protected class that forms a relatively small percentage of a city’s population may be able to state a cause of action for violation of the CVRA. Also, small cities are as vulnerable as larger jurisdictions.

The CVRA purports to protect electoral “influence” as well as the ability to elect chosen candidates. No court has ruled on the meaning of electoral “influence” in the 23 years since enactment of the CVRA.

Electoral influence was not an issue in the Santa Monica case. In the Santa Monica case, the Latino plaintiffs alleged that in a by-district electoral system in which Latinos constituted about 30 percent of eligible voters in a district, Latinos would be successful in electing chosen candidates because of the PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 96 ends

characteristics of the voters in the neighborhoods in that district.

The League of California Cities provided a summary of the Santa Monica case on August 30, 2023 (Attachment 4).

D. Remedies
In CVRA cases, the court has broad jurisdiction to order additional “appropriate” remedies. In all CVRA cases to date, the court has ordered the losing jurisdiction to implement by-district election.

City of Highland: In this case, the city argued that the admitted CVRA violation could be remedied through use of a cumulative voting system. Plaintiffs argued in favor of by-district elections and won.

City of Palmdale: In the Palmdale case, the remedies included shortening the terms of office of council members elected in the at-large system and ordering a special election in which all the new district seats were on the ballot at the same time. The City was permitted to re-stagger the terms of office after that first election in the new districts.

E. Attorneys Fees
As mentioned above, the CVRA contains an attorneys’ fee-shifting provision that operates in only one direction, in favor of plaintiffs. The CVRA mandates that the defendant shall pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses of plaintiffs who prevail in a CVRA lawsuit. Plaintiffs can also prevail through a settlement which results in a change to by-district election without a court order.

Exposure to payment of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses has been a significant incentive motivating other jurisdictions to transition to by-district elections because of the extremely high expense of CVRA trials. Both parties must retain expert witnesses, often three or four on issues such as demographics, racially polarized voting, the efficacy of alternative voting systems, and the totality of the circumstances supporting a showing of the undiluted ability of protected class voters to elect chosen candidates. Examples of the recovery of attorneys fees by plaintiffs by court order include:

City of Santa Monica: The outstanding demand for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in through trial is $22 million;
City of Palmdale: the City paid approximately $4.5 million to the prevailing plaintiffs; City of Highland: this case which concerned only the remedy to be implemented because the city had conceded liability, the city paid plaintiffs $1 million; City of Santa Clara: the prevailing plaintiffs collected $3.5 million in fees and expenses through trial; City of Modesto: this was the very first CVRA case to go to trial and the City prevailed at trial, but then was reversed on appeal, the city paid plaintiffs approximately $3.5 million for attorneys fees.

Settlements have also been expensive with payments in the range of $300,000 to $1 million for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees depending on the stage of the litigation in which the case was settled.

In addition to these mandatory payments to plaintiffs’ attorneys, defending jurisdictions must pay their own attorneys and expenses of litigation, which generally run in the millions of dollars as well.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 97 ends

No jurisdiction has yet successfully defended itself in a CVRA case that has gone to trial. However, were that to happen, the defendant is not entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees or costs of litigation and would remain exposed to a CVRA demand and lawsuit in the future by a different set of plaintiffs.

F. City Charter
Pacific Grove’s Charter provides that , “The Mayor and the members of the Council shall be elected from the City at large.” (Charter of the City of Pacific Grove, Art. 6.) Ordinarily, this provision could be changed only with approval of the majority of the voters of the City. Some cities, including charter cities have used a state law, Government Code § 34886, to transition to by-district elections without placing the issue of the change on the ballot. Section 34886 provides:

Notwithstanding Section 34871 or any other law, the legislative body of a city may adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor, as described in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 34871, without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters for approval. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements and criteria of Section 21130 of the Elections Code and include a declaration that the change in the method of electing members of the legislative body is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025) of Division 14 of the Elections Code).

Some charter cities that have transitioned from at-large elections to by-district elections have interpreted their respective charters as permitting the change without a vote. For example, the Charter of the City of Monterey, in contrast to the Charter of the City of Pacific Grove, does not specify the City’s method of electing its legislative body. Accordingly, the city did not place the change to by-district elections on the ballot.

The City of Sunnyvale’s charter did specify at-large elections for the city council and when the city transitioned to by-district elections, the process included a charter amendment ballot measure authorizing the change.

The City of Santa Rosa’s charter also specified at-large elections for the city council; however, that city interpreted its charter as enabling the city to use section 34886, above, to transition to by-district elections without first amending the city charter.

No court has ruled on the legality of charter cities with at-large elections specified in the charter using section 34886 to transition to by-district elections without a charter amendment vote.

In the case of Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 798 (2014), the court held that if a charter city’s electoral system is adjudicated to cause dilution of the voting rights of a protected class, then state law prevails over the Charter.

G. Process for Transitioning to By-District Elections
The process of transitioning to by-district elections is controlled by California Elections Code § 10010 (Attachment 5), which specifically applies to charter cities.

Elections Code § 10010 requires a minimum of five public hearings as follows:

Activity Timing (EC § 10010)
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 98 ends

Retain Demographer.

Pass Resolution of Intent to Change to
Single-member Districts; Adopt Tentative
Calendar.

Passage of resolution
commences 90-day safe harbor
period, which can be extended
within parameters.

Hold two Public Hearings on the Composition
of Possible Districts Before Draft Maps Are
Drawn.

No more than 30 days apart
Publish Draft Maps and Election Sequence. 7 days prior to 1st public hearing on maps
Hold First of Two Public Hearings on Draft
Maps.

No more than 45 days apart
Publish any Additional Maps With Election
Sequence.
7 days prior to 2nd public
hearing
Hold 2nd Public Hearing on Draft Maps; Select
Preferred Map.

Within 45 days of 1st public
hearing
Hold Final Public Hearing to Adopt Districting
Plan and Sequence of Election To Be
Implemented Contingent on Voter Approval of a
Charter Amendment Providing for By-district
Elections of City Council Members.

At least 7 days after any
changes to map proposed for
adoption
Deadline for Delivering to Monterey County
Board of Supervisors Charter Amendment
Ballot Measure Materials and Resolution
Requesting Consolidation With the Statewide
General Election.

August 9, 2024
First City Council Elections Conducted
By-district if Charter Amendment Approved by
the Voters.

November 2026
H. Conclusion
In order to evaluate the City’s demographics and the potential issues regarding the California Voting Rights Act, the recommendation is for the City Council to direct the City Manager to issue an Request for Proposal for a qualified demographer to study the demographics of the City and return to the City Council with the report by the demographer for discussion and further direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

OPTIONS
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 99 ends

Staff time for the preparation of the Request for Proposal.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 - LULAC Letter
2 - CVRA Elections Code Sections 14025-14032
3 - PICO Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal. 5th 292 (2023) 4 - League of California Cities Paper Dates August 30, 2023 5 - California Elections Code Section 10010
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 100 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 101 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 102 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 103 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 104 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 105 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 106 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 107 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 108 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 109 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 110 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 111 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 112 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 113 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 114 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 115 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 116 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 117 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 118 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 119 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 120 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 121 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 122 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 123 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 124 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 125 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 126 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 127 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 128 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 129 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 130 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 131 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 132 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 133 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 134 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 135 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 136 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 137 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 138 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 139 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 140 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 141 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 142 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 143 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 144 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 145 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 146 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 147 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 148 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 149 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 150 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 151 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 152 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 153 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 154 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 155 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 156 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 157 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 158 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 159 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 160 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 161 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 162 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 163 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 164 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 165 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 166 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 167 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 168 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 169 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 170 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 171 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 172 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 173 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 174 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 175 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 176 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 177 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 178 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 179 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 180 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 181 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 182 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 183 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 184 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 185 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 186 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 187 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 188 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 189 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 190 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 191 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 192 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 193 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 194 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 195 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 196 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 197 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 198 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 199 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 200 ends

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 201 ends

1 CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
§ 14025. Short title
Effective: January 1, 2003
This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 § 14026. Definitions
As used in this chapter:
(a) “At-large method of election” means any of the following methods of electing members to the governing body of a political subdivision:
(1) One in which the voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body. (2) One in which the candidates are required to reside within given areas of the jurisdiction and the voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body. (3) One that combines at-large elections with district-based elections. (b) “District-based elections” means a method of electing members to the governing body of a political subdivision in which the candidate must reside within an election district that is a divisible part of the political subdivision and is elected only by voters residing within that election district. (c) “Political subdivision” means a geographic area of representation created for the provision of government services, including, but not limited to, a general law city, general law county, charter city, charter county, charter city and county, school district, community college district, or other district organized pursuant to state law.
(d) “Protected class” means a class of voters who are members of a race, color, or language minority group, as this class is referenced and defined in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.).
(e) “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference, as defined in case law regarding enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.), in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate. The methodologies for estimating group voting behavior as approved in applicable federal cases to enforce the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.) to establish racially polarized voting may be used for purposes of this section to prove that elections are characterized by racially polarized voting.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 202 ends

2 § 14027. At-large method of election affecting protected class voters An at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class, as defined pursuant to Section 14026.
§ 14028. Violation of protected class voter rights; determination (a) A violation of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision. Elections conducted prior to the filing of an action pursuant to Section 14027 and this section are more probative to establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of the action. (b) The occurrence of racially polarized voting shall be determined from examining results of elections in which at least one candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class. One circumstance that may be considered in determining a violation of Section 14027 and this section is the extent to which candidates who are members of a protected class and who are preferred by voters of the protected class, as determined by an analysis of voting behavior, have been elected to the governing body of a political subdivision that is the subject of an action based on Section 14027 and this section. In multiseat at-large election districts, where the number of candidates who are members of a protected class is fewer than the number of seats available, the relative groupwide support received by candidates from members of a protected class shall be the basis for the racial polarization analysis. (c) The fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated may not preclude a finding of racially polarized voting, or a violation of Section 14027 and this section, but may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy.
(d) Proof of an intent on the part of the voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required.
(e) Other factors such as the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns are probative, but not necessary factors to establish a violation of Section 14027 and this section.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 203 ends

3 § 14029. Remedies for violation of §§ 14027 and 14028 Upon a finding of a violation of Section 14027 and Section 14028, the court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that are tailored to remedy the violation. § 14030. Attorney’s fees and costs
In any action to enforce Section 14027 and Section 14028, the court shall allow the prevailing plaintiff party, other than the state or political subdivision thereof, a reasonable attorney’s fee consistent with the standards established in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48-49, and litigation expenses including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs. Prevailing defendant parties shall not recover any costs, unless the court finds the action to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
§ 14031. Implementation as constitutional protection
This chapter is enacted to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution.
§ 14032. Voter private right of action
Any voter who is a member of a protected class and who resides in a political subdivision where a violation of Sections 14027 and 14028 is alleged may file an action pursuant to those sections in the superior court of the county in which the political subdivision is located.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 204 ends

PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant and
Appellant.

S263972
|
August 24, 2023
|
As Modified September 20, 2023
Synopsis
Background: Neighborhood organization and registered
voter brought action alleging that city's at-large voting system for nonpartisan elections for city council
discriminated against Latinos, in violation of California Voting Rights Act and California Constitution's Equal
Protection Clause. Following bench trial, the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC616804, Yvette M. Palazuelos, J., 2019 WL 10854474, entered judgment in plaintiffs'
favor on constitutional and statutory claims and ordered city to switch to district-based voting. City appealed. The Court of Appeal, 51 Cal.App.5th 1002, 265 Cal.Rptr.3d 530,
reversed. Review was granted.
[Holding:] The Supreme Court, Evans, J., held that
plaintiffs, after establishing existence of racially polarized voting, were not required to prove that minority group of Latino voters would constitute a majority, or near majority, of hypothetical single-member district.

Court of Appeal reversed; remanded.

Opinion, 51 Cal.App.5th 1002, 265 Cal.Rptr.3d 530,
depublished.

Procedural Posture(s): Petition for Discretionary Review; On Appeal; Judgment.

West Headnotes (17)
[1] Election Law Vote Dilution
Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
of minority group
In two significant respects, California Voting
Rights Act (CVRA) makes it easier than § 2 of
VRA to challenge State's or political
subdivision's at-large method of election: first,
CVRA, unlike VRA, does not require plaintiff to
demonstrate that members of minority group
would be geographically compact or
concentrated enough to constitute a majority of
hypothetical single-member district, and second,
while plaintiff can succeed under either VRA or
CVRA by showing that at-large method dilutes
minority group's voting power by impairing its
ability to elect candidates of its choice, only
CVRA allows plaintiff to prevail by
demonstrating, in the alternative, that at-large
method impairs minority group's ability to
influence election outcome. Voting Rights Act of
1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(b); Cal. Elec.

Code §§ 14027, 14028(c).
[2] Election Law Vote Dilution
A court presented with a vote-dilution claim
challenging an at-large voting system under § 2
of the VRA, or under the California Voting
Rights Act (CVRA), which applies to
nonpartisan elections, should undertake a
searching evaluation of the totality of the facts
and circumstances, including the characteristics
of the specific locality, its electoral history, and
an intensely local appraisal of the design and
impact of the contested electoral mechanisms, as
well as the design and impact of the potential
alternative electoral system. Voting Rights Act of
1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301(b); Cal. Elec.

Code §§ 14026(a, c), 14027, 14028(e).
[3] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 205 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 of minority group
Election Law Racially polarized or bloc voting
An at-large electoral system or multimember
district can qualify as a prohibited vote-dilution
practice under § 2 of the VRA when the plaintiff
can show that a bloc-voting majority is usually
able to defeat candidates supported by a
politically cohesive, geographically insular
minority group, and the greater the degree to
which the electoral minority is homogenous and
insular and the greater the degree that bloc voting
occurs along majority-minority lines, the greater
will be the extent to which the minority's voting
power is diluted. Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2,
52 U.S.C.A. § 10301.
[4] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
of minority group
Election Law Racially polarized or bloc voting
Plaintiff asserting vote-dilution challenge to atlarge voting system, under § 2 of VRA, must satisfy three threshold conditions under
Gingles: first, minority group must be
sufficiently large and geographically compact to
constitute majority in single-member district,
second, minority group must be politically
cohesive, and third, white majority must vote
sufficiently as bloc to enable it, in absence of
special circumstances, such as minority
candidate running unopposed, usually to defeat
minority group's preferred candidate. Voting
Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301.
[5] Election Law Vote Dilution
Once the plaintiff asserting vote-dilution
challenge to at-large voting system, under § 2 of
VRA, has satisfied the three threshold conditions
under Gingles, trial court is to consider
totality of the circumstances and determine,
based upon a searching practical evaluation of
past and present reality, whether the political
process is equally open to minority voters, and
this determination is peculiarly dependent upon
the facts of each case, and requires an intensely
local appraisal of the design and impact of
contested electoral mechanisms. Voting Rights
Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301.
[6] Election Law Vote Dilution
Under totality of circumstances approach for
considering vote-dilution challenge to at-large
voting system, under § 2 of VRA, court considers
a number of factors that typically may be
relevant, including: history of voting-related
discrimination in State or political subdivision;
extent to which voting is racially polarized;
extent to which State or political subdivision has
used voting practices or procedures that tend to
enhance opportunity for discrimination against
minority group, such as unusually large election
districts, majority vote requirements, and
prohibitions against bullet voting; exclusion of
members of minority group from candidate
slating processes; extent to which minority group
members bear effects of past discrimination in
areas such as education, employment, and health,
which hinder their ability to participate
effectively in political process; use of overt or
subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and
extent to which members of minority group have
been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. §
10301.
[7] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
of minority group
Election Law Racially polarized or bloc voting
For a vote-dilution challenge to an at-large
method of election under Section 2 of the VRA,
or under the California Voting Rights Act
(CVRA), which applies to nonpartisan elections,
a plaintiff must show polarized voting, i.e.,
members of minority group vote as a politically
cohesive unit, while the majority votes
sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat minority
group's preferred candidate. Voting Rights Act of
1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301; Cal. Elec.

Code §§ 14026(a, c, e), 14027, 14028(a).
[8] Statutes Context
A court construing a statute does not view a
fragment in isolation, but considers the statute as
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 206 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 a whole, in context with related provisions and
the overall statutory structure, so that it may best
identify and effectuate the scheme's underlying
purpose.
[9] Election Law Dilution of voting power in
general
To establish vote dilution under § 2 of the VRA,
a court must find a reasonable alternative
practice as a benchmark against which to
measure the existing voting practice. Voting
Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301.
[10] Election Law Racially polarized or bloc voting
While the existence of racially polarized voting
is relevant to a vote-dilution claim under § 2 of
the VRA, and is indeed a key element for the
claim, it is not in itself sufficient, and dilution
requires a showing that the minority group has
less ability to elect its preferred candidate. Voting
Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301.
[11] Election Law Racially polarized or bloc voting
The existence of racially polarized voting is not,
in itself, sufficient for a vote-dilution claim under
the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
challenging a nonpartisan at-large voting system,
and dilution requires a showing that the minority
group has less ability to elect its preferred
candidate or influence the election's outcome
than it would have if the at-large system had not
been adopted. Cal. Elec. Code §§ 14026(a, c),
14027.
[12] Election Law Vote Dilution
To establish the dilution element for a votedilution claim under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) challenging a nonpartisan at-large
voting system, the plaintiff must identify a
reasonable alternative voting practice to the
existing at-large electoral system that will serve
as the benchmark undiluted voting practice. Cal.

Elec. Code §§ 14026(a, c), 14027.
[13] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
of minority group
The rationale for requiring, in a vote-dilution
challenge under § 2 of the VRA to an at-large
voting system, that the challenger demonstrate
that the minority group is sufficiently large and
geographically compact to constitute a majority
in a single-member district is that if the minority
group is spread evenly throughout a
multimember district, or if, although
geographically compact, the minority group is so
small in relation to the surrounding white
population that it could not constitute a majority
in a single-member district, these minority voters
cannot maintain that they would have been able
to elect representatives of their choice in the
absence of the multimember electoral structure.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. §
10301.
[14] Municipal Corporations Nature and
constitution of body in general
To prevail on vote-dilution challenge under
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) to at-large
method of nonpartisan elections for city council,
challengers, after establishing existence of
racially polarized voting, were not required to
prove that minority group of Latino voters would
constitute a majority, or near majority, of
hypothetical single-member district, where
winning candidates often earned only plurality of
vote; accordingly, what was required to establish
dilution of Latino voters' ability to elect
candidates of their choice was proof that, under
some lawful alternative electoral system, Latino
voters would have potential, on their own or with
help of crossover voters, to elect their preferred
candidate, and lawful alternative electoral
systems could include, but were not limited to,
single-member district elections. Cal. Elec. Code
§§ 14026(a, c, e), 14027, 14028(a).
[15] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
of minority group
To establish, under the California Voting Rights
Act (CVRA), that an at-large voting system for
nonpartisan elections dilutes a minority group's
ability to elect its preferred candidate, a plaintiff
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 207 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 must demonstrate the potential to elect
representatives under some lawful alternative
electoral method, and one way to do this would
be to show that minority group would be
sufficiently large and geographically compact to
constitute a majority in a single-member district,
but that is not the only way, and plaintiff could
demonstrate minority group's ability to attract
crossover votes for its preferred candidate, or
plaintiff may identify nondistrict remedies that
would enable minority group, on its own or with
assistance of crossover votes, to elect its
preferred candidate. Cal. Elec. Code §§ 14026(a,
c, e), 14027.
[16] Election Law Vote Dilution
Key inquiry in establishing dilution, in votedilution challenge to at-large voting system for nonpartisan elections under California Voting
Rights Act (CVRA), of minority group's ability
to elect its preferred candidate is what percentage
of vote would be required to win, an inquiry that
is not short-circuited merely because minority
group may fall short of absolute majority or
something close to it, and in predicting how
many candidates are likely to run and what
percentage may be necessary to win, courts may
consider experiences of similar jurisdictions that
use district elections or other alternatives to
traditional at-large elections, and courts should
keep in mind that the inquiry at liability stage is
simply to prove that a solution is possible, and
not necessarily to present final solution. Voting
Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. §
10301(b); Cal. Elec. Code §§ 14026(a, c), 14027,
14028(e).
[17] Election Law Vote Dilution
The dilution element for a vote-dilution
challenge to an at-large voting system under § 2
of the VRA, or under the California Voting
Rights Act (CVRA), which applies to
nonpartisan elections, ensures that the minority
group is not made worse off, and to replace atlarge elections with district elections under a dilution theory, a successful plaintiff must show
not merely that the minority group would have a
real electoral opportunity in one or more
hypothetical districts, but also that the
incremental gain in the group's ability to elect its
candidate of choice in such districts would not be
offset by a loss of the group's potential to elect its
candidates of choice elsewhere in the locality.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. §
10301(b); Cal. Elec. Code §§ 14026(a, c), 14027.
**57 ***322 Second Appellate District, Division Eight,
B295935, Los Angeles County Superior Court, BC 616804,
Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge
Attorneys and Law Firms
Lane Dilg, City Attorney, George Cardona, Interim City
Attorney; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Marcellus A. McRae, Kahn A. Scolnick, Tiaunia N.

Henry and Daniel R. Adler, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant.

Cole Huber and Derek P. Cole for League of California
Cities and California Special Districts Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Strumwasser & Woocher, Bryce A. Gee, Los Angeles, and
Caroline C. Chiappetti for The Santa Monica Transparency Project as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Appellant.

John K. Haggerty as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

The Law Office of Joseph Pertel, Joseph A. Pertel; and
Christopher M. Harding, Santa Monica, for League of
Women Voters of Santa Monica, Alliance of Santa Monica
Latino and Black Voters, Human Relations Council Santa
Monica Bay Area and Community for Excellent Public
Schools as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Appellant.

Shenkman & Hughes, Kevin I. Shenkman, Mary R. Hughes,
Los Angeles, Andrea A. Alarcon; Law Office of Robert
Rubin, Robert Rubin, San Francisco; Goldstein, Borgen,
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 208 ends

Bellows, Ginger L. Grimes, Oakland; Parris Law Firm, R.

Rex Parris, Ellery S. Gordon, Lancaster; Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes, Milton C. Grimes; Schonbrun Seplow
Harris & Hoffman, Paul Hoffman and John Washington,
Culver City, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Panish Shea & Boyle and Brian Panish, Los Angeles, for
Richard Polanco, Sergio Farias, Juan Carrillo, Richard Loa and Austin Bishop as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Hogan Lovells US, Ira M. Feinberg, Erin Chapman, Zach
Martinez, Patrick C. Hynds, Derek Centola and Joseph M.

Charlet for FairVote as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger, Douglas E.

Mirell and Michelle A. Mabugat, Los Angeles, for Sara
Sadhwani, Bernard Fraga, Janelle Wong, Marisa Abrajano, Jason Casellas, Lorrie Frasure, Matthew Mendez Garcia,
Christian Grose, Eric Gonzalez Juenke, Jane Junn, Taeku Lee, Gabriele Magni, Jennifer Merolla, Melissa Michelson, Jessica Lavariega Monforti, Jason Morin, Ricardo Ramírez, Paru Shah, LaFleur Stephens, Dara Strolovitch, Christopher Towler and Tom Wong as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Plaintiffs and Respondents.

UCLA Voting Rights Project, Chad W. Dunn and Sonni
Waknin for Matt Barreto, Lorrie Frasure, Chelsea Jones, Natalie Masuoka, Gary Segura, Efrén Pérez and Chris
Zepeda-Millán as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Keker, Van Nest & Peters, R. Adam Lauridsen and Connie P.

Sung, San Francisco, for Asian Americans Advancing
Justice–Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing
Justice–Los Angeles and Asian Law Alliance as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Rosenfeld Meyer & Susman and Todd W. Bonder, Beverly
Hills, for Oscar de la Torre as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Lowenstein & Weatherwax, Nathan Lowenstein and Kenneth
J. Weatherwax, Los Angeles, for Bruce A. Wessel as Amicus Curiae.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Jonathan L. Wolff, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Heather Hoesterey and Kristin A. Liska, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Attorney
General as Amicus Curiae.

Stephen Bosworth and L. Stevan Leonard as Amicus Curiae.

Opinion
Opinion of the Court by Evans, J.
*305 **58 ***323 Local governments make many of the
most important decisions that affect Californians' everyday lives. They build and repair public streets, they define a neighborhood's character through planning and zoning, and they decide where to place public parks and where to allow restaurants, bars, and liquor stores to operate. They make decisions about public transit and decide where to site industries that cause pollution. They provide police services and determine the level and type of policing and other first responder services, they educate our children, they operate or regulate local utilities, and they have the power to levy taxes.

The people exercise control over these choices by electing representatives to city councils, county boards, boards of education, community college boards, special district boards, and other bodies.

The genius of representative government, in all its guises, is that it is responsive to the people it serves. But its ability to be responsive is dependent in a fundamental way on the
assumption that each ***324 person's vote is of equal
weight. While we often take that assumption for granted, sometimes the actual value of one's vote can vary based on the way the voting is structured. For example, a minority of voters may find itself unable to elect even a single member of a multimember body when the members are elected *306 at large, but would be able to elect one or more
representatives if the members were elected by districts or by another lawful method.

In such circumstances, the voting rules may effectively decide whether a group of voters can have a voice in the myriad decisions made by local representatives. With a seat at the table, the voters' representative can have a say in the topics and terms of the debate on the many crucial decisions that local governments make. Without a seat, though, the PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 209 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 voters' voice may be effectively muted or silenced and their needs and preferences may be ignored or given less weight.

To address this problem, federal and state law restrict atlarge voting systems from unfairly submerging or diluting the votes of a minority in the majority's greater numbers.

Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of **59 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. § 10301; VRA) prohibits states and their political subdivisions from using an at-large method of election when such a scheme would “result in unequal access to the
electoral process” based on protected characteristics of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. (
Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) 478 U.S. 30, 46, 106 S.Ct.
2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 ( Gingles).) In an effort to provide greater protections to California voters than those provided by the VRA, the Legislature subsequently enacted the
California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elec. Code, § 14025 et seq.; CVRA). The CVRA prohibits an at-large method of
election “that impairs the ability of a protected class” (id., § 14027) — as defined by race, color, or language minority group (id., § 14026, subd. (d)) — “to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class” (id., § 14027). [1] Both statutory schemes require a plaintiff to show racially polarized voting — i.e., that the protected class members vote as a politically cohesive unit, while the majority votes “sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat” the protected class's preferred candidate. ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 56, 106 S.Ct. 2752; accord, Elec. Code, §§ 14026, subd. (e) [providing that “racially polarized voting” may be
established by “[t]he methodologies for estimating group voting behavior as approved in applicable federal cases to enforce the [VRA]”], 14028, subd. (a).) The CVRA,
however, “make[s] it easier to successfully challenge at-large districts” in two significant respects. (Assem. Com. on Elections, Reapportionment and Const. Amends., Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001–2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 18, 2002, p. 4.) First, the CVRA, unlike the VRA, does not require a plaintiff to demonstrate that the members of the protected class would be geographically compact or
concentrated enough to constitute a majority of a
hypothetical single-member district. (Compare Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c) with Gingles, at p. 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) *307 Second, while a plaintiff can succeed under either the VRA or the CVRA by showing that the at-large method
dilutes a protected class's voting power by impairing its ability “to elect” candidates of its choice ( 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b); Elec. Code, § 14027), only the CVRA allows the plaintiff to prevail by demonstrating, in the alternative, that the at-large method impairs the class's ability “to influence the outcome of an election.” ***325 (Elec. Code, § 14027, italics added; cf. League of United Latin American
Citizens v. Perry (2006) 548 U.S. 399, 446, 126 S.Ct. 2594, 165 L.Ed.2d 609 ( LULAC) (plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.)
[“The failure to create an influence district ... does not run afoul of § 2 of the [VRA]”].)
In this case, the trial court determined that because of racially polarized voting, the at-large method of electing city council members in the City of Santa Monica (the City)
diluted Latino voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates and their ability to influence the outcome of council elections, as compared to several alternative electoral methods, including district elections. To remedy this
violation, the trial court ordered the City to promptly conduct a special election using a seven-district map drafted by an expert who testified at trial.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the judgment and then reversed. It disagreed with the trial court's finding that the atlarge method of election had “impaired Latinos' ability to elect candidates of their choice or to influence the outcome of an election.” In the Court of Appeal's view, there had been no dilution of Latino voters' ability to elect their preferred candidates because Latino voters were too few and too
geographically dispersed “to muster a majority, no matter how the City might slice itself into districts.” The court likewise found no dilution of Latino voters' ability to influence the outcome of an election because a group's
ability to influence an election, the Court of Appeal
reasoned, has no meaning independent of the group's ability to elect its preferred candidate. In light of its findings, the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to consider whether racially polarized voting had been established.

We conclude the Court of Appeal misconstrued the CVRA.

To prevail on a CVRA **60 claim, a plaintiff who has
established the existence of racially polarized voting in an atlarge system need not prove that the protected class would constitute a majority — or, as the City proposes, a near PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 210 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 majority — of a hypothetical single-member district. City council elections, after all, are nonpartisan ( Cal. Const., art. II, § 6), and the record here shows that winning
candidates often earn only a plurality of the vote.

Accordingly, what is required to establish “dilution” of a protected class's “ability ... to elect candidates of its choice” (Elec. Code, § 14027) is proof that, under some lawful
alternative electoral system, the protected class would have the *308 potential, on its own or with the help of crossover voters, to elect its preferred candidate. The lawful alternative electoral system may include, but is not limited to, singlemember district elections. [2] A court presented with a dilution claim should undertake a searching evaluation of the totality of the facts and
circumstances (see, e.g., Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (e)), including the characteristics of the specific locality, its electoral history, and “ ‘an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact’ of the contested electoral mechanisms” as well as the design and impact of the potential alternative electoral system. ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2752; see Allen v. Milligan (2023) 599 U.S. 1, ––––, 143 S.Ct. 1487 [216 L.Ed.2d 60, 75] ( Milligan).) In
predicting how many candidates are likely to run and what percentage may be necessary to win, courts may also
consider the experiences of other similar jurisdictions that use alternative electoral systems. (Cf. Gingles, at p. 56, 106 S.Ct. 2752.)
Because the Court of Appeal did not evaluate the dilution element of the CVRA under this standard, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the Court ***326 of
Appeal for it to reconsider in the first instance the CVRA claim presented here.

I. Background
Defendant, the City of Santa Monica, has a seven-member city council. Members are elected at large through staggered elections: four are elected during the year of a presidential election, while the other three are elected during the year of a gubernatorial election. Plaintiff Pico Neighborhood
Association is a nonprofit organization dedicated to
advancing the interests of the residents of the City's Pico neighborhood, where its Latino residents are concentrated.

While Latinos constitute only 13.64 percent of the City's citizen-voting-age population, they make up 30 percent of Pico's citizen-voting-age population.

In April 2016, plaintiffs Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya, a Latina registered voter, filed this action against the City, alleging that the City's at-large method of electing its city council unlawfully impaired the ability of Latino voters to elect their preferred candidates or,
alternatively, to influence the outcome of council elections.

The at-large scheme, in plaintiffs' view, violated the CVRA as well as the equal protection clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a)).

Following a six-week trial, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in plaintiffs' favor on both claims, but this appeal concerns only the CVRA claim. After reviewing elections over the preceding 24 years, the court *309 declared that “a consistent pattern of racially-polarized voting emerges. In most elections where the choice is available, Latino voters strongly prefer a Latino candidate running for Defendant's city council, but, despite that support, the preferred Latino candidate loses.” Indeed, at the time of the court's ruling, “only one Latino ha[d] been elected to the Santa Monica City Council in the 72 years of the current election system.”1 The court further observed that the statistical evidence of racially polarized voting was corroborated by multiple
qualitative factors within the meaning of Elections Code section 14028, subdivision (e): a history of discrimination against Latinos in Los Angeles County generally and in the City specifically; the use **61 of staggered elections, which may have discriminatory effects in some circumstances; an income disparity between the City's Latinos and its majority population that is “far greater than the national disparity”; the use of racist appeals in city council campaigns; and the lack of responsiveness to the interests and concerns of the City's Latino community, including the substantial
underrepresentation of Latinos on the City's various
commissions.

The trial court further found that the City's at-large voting system unlawfully diluted the electoral strength of its Latino residents within the meaning of the CVRA, in that several alternative voting systems — e.g., district-based elections, cumulative voting, limited voting, and ranked choice voting — would better enable Latino voters “to elect candidates of PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 211 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 their choice or influence the outcomes of elections.” In light of “the national, state and local experiences with district elections, particularly those involving districts in which the minority group is not a majority of eligible voters,” the court adopted the election map drafted by plaintiffs' expert, ***327 which created seven council districts. The court ordered a special, district-based election for all seven seats to be held on July 2, 2019.

The City successfully petitioned for a writ of supersedeas to stay the trial court's order for new elections pending
resolution of its appeal. In that appeal, the Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reversed the trial court judgment, finding that the City's at-large voting system violated neither the CVRA nor the California Constitution. The Court of
Appeal began by rejecting plaintiffs' one-sentence argument that a CVRA violation could be established merely by
evidence of racially polarized voting without any further showing that the City's at-large voting system “diluted” Latino voting power as compared to “ ‘some alternative
method of election.’ ” The court next concluded that
changing from an at-large system (where Latinos constituted approximately 14 percent of the voting population) to a district system *310 (where Latinos would constitute 30 percent of a district centered around the Pico neighborhood) would not enhance Latino voters' ability to elect their candidates of choice or influence the outcome of an election in a “legally significant” way and therefore failed to
demonstrate that the City's at-large system “dilut[ed]” their voting power within the meaning of the CVRA. Plaintiffs' theory, the Court of Appeal reasoned, “would create absurd results,” in that “any unrealized increase in a group's percentage would satisfy the dilution element,” even if the group had “a vanishingly small numerical presence.” The court likewise rejected plaintiffs' contention that other voters might “ ‘cross over’ and vote for Latino candidates, buoying Latino power and clearing the 50 percent threshold to
electoral success.” Such a suggestion, the Court of Appeal claimed, “arbitrarily embraces racially polarized voting when it helps and abandons it when it hurts.” In light of its conclusion that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate dilution, the court did not consider whether plaintiffs had
demonstrated the existence of racially polarized voting.

We granted plaintiffs' petition for review to determine what constitutes dilution of a protected class's ability to elect candidates of its choice or to influence the outcome of an election within the meaning of the CVRA. We also ordered depublication of the Court of Appeal opinion. (Pico
Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica (2020) 270
Cal.Rptr.3d, 474 P.3d 635 .)
II. Discussion
Different electoral systems can lead to different outcomes. (See Engstrom, Modified Multi-Seat Election Systems As
Remedies for Minority Vote Dilution (1992) 21 Stetson
L.Rev. 743, 743 (Engstrom).) For example, where a racial minority and a racial majority consistently prefer different candidates, “multimember districts and at-large voting
schemes may ‘ “operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.” ’ ” ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 47, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) The use of at-large voting schemes in such circumstances allows the majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, not only to regularly defeat the candidates preferred by the minority ( id. at p. 48, 106 S.Ct. 2752), but also to “ ‘ignore
[minority] interests without fear of political consequences,’ [citation] leaving **62 the minority effectively
unrepresented.” ( Id. at p. 48, fn. 14, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) If, on the other hand, the political unit were “divided into single-member districts,” those same minority groups “may be able to elect several representatives.” ( Rogers v. Lodge (1982) 458 U.S. 613, 616, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012.) This potential disparity is why the high court has “stated on many occasions that multimember districting ***328 plans, as well as at-large plans, generally pose greater threats to minority-voter *311 participation in the political process than do single-member districts.” ( Growe v. Emison (1993)
507 U.S. 25, 40, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388.)
The VRA and the CVRA each offer an opportunity for racial and language minority groups to challenge the dilution of their voting power caused by at-large voting systems. But they do so in somewhat different ways. Because the CVRA bears some similarities to the VRA, while also seeking to address perceived inadequacies in the VRA, we begin with a review of both statutory schemes.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 212 ends

1. The VRA
[3] The VRA, as amended in 1982, prohibits a state or its political subdivisions from using any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or [membership in a language minority group]” where, “based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to
participation by members of [the protected] class of citizens ... in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate ... to elect representatives of their choice.” ( 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a), (b).) An at-large
electoral system or multimember district2 can qualify as a prohibited practice under the VRA when the plaintiff can show that a bloc-voting majority is “usually ... able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive,
geographically insular minority group.” ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 49, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) “ ‘[T]he greater the degree to which the electoral minority is homogenous and insular and the greater the degree that bloc voting occurs along majority-minority lines, the greater will be the extent to which the minority's voting power is diluted by
multimember districting.’ ” ( Id. at p. 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) [4] [5] [6] A plaintiff asserting a “vote dilution” challenge to an at-large voting system under the VRA must satisfy “three threshold conditions.” ( Voinovich v. Quilter (1993) 507 U.S. 146, 157, 113 S.Ct. 1149, 122 L.Ed.2d 500.) “First, the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is
sufficiently large and *312 geographically compact to
constitute a majority in a single-member district. ... Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. ... Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed, [citation] — usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.” ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at pp. 50–51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, fn. omitted.) Once those predicate facts have been established, “the trial court is to consider the ‘totality of the circumstances’ and to determine, based ‘upon a searching practical evaluation of the “past and present reality,” ’ [citation], whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. ‘ “This determination is peculiarly dependent ***329 upon the facts of each case,” ’ [citation], and requires ‘an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact’ of the contested electoral mechanisms.” ( Id. at p. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) In
undertaking this analysis, the court considers a number of factors that “typically may be relevant” to a claim under the VRA ( Gingles, at p. 44, 106 S.Ct. 2752) and that are
sometimes called “ ‘the Senate factors’ **63 ” 3 because they appeared in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Committee majority report that accompanied the bill amending the VRA (YumoriKaku v. City of Santa Clara (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 385, 394, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 437).

2. The CVRA
While the CVRA is “much like” the VRA in some ways,
there are notable differences between the two statutory schemes. (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001–2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p.

2.) Four stand out in this proceeding. First, unlike the VRA, the CVRA applies only to “[a]n at-large method of election” (Elec. Code, § 14027) for nonpartisan offices (id., § 14026, subds. (a), (c); see Cal. Const., art. II, § 6). Second, the CVRA addresses not only impairments to a protected class's “ability ... to elect candidates of its choice” (Elec. Code, § 14027; cf. 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b) [“opportunity ... to elect representatives of their choice”]), but also the class's “ability to influence the outcome of an election” (Elec. Code, § 14027, italics added). Third, the CVRA made it easier to challenge at-large electoral systems by explicitly rejecting the first Gingles *313 precondition: “The fact that
members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated may not preclude a finding of racially
polarized voting, or a violation of Section 14027 and this section, but may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy.” (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c).) Fourth, the CVRA includes its own list of potentially probative factors, many of which overlap with the Senate factors above, but cautions that they are “not necessary factors to establish a violation” of the CVRA. (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (e).)4
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 213 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 [7] Despite these differences, the CVRA, like the VRA,
requires a plaintiff claiming vote dilution arising from an atlarge voting system to establish the existence of racially polarized voting — i.e., that the protected class members vote as a ***330 politically cohesive unit, while the majority votes “sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat” the protected class's preferred candidate. ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 56, 106 S.Ct. 2752; accord, Elec. Code, §§ 14026, subd. (e) [providing that “racially polarized voting” may be
established by “[t]he methodologies for estimating group voting behavior as approved in applicable federal cases to enforce the [VRA]”], 14028, subd. (a).)5
B. Defining Terms in the CVRA
The CVRA prohibits the use of an at-large method of
election when it “impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who **64 are members of a protected class.” (Elec. Code, § 14027.) Plaintiffs contend that the City's at-large city council elections prevent Latino voters from electing, either on their own or with the support of crossover voters, their preferred candidate. They argue this diluted their ability to elect their candidate of choice as well as their ability to influence the outcome of an election.

The statute, however, does not define “dilution,” “ability ... to elect candidates of its choice,” or “ability ... to influence the outcome of an election.” (Ibid.) The meaning of these *314 undefined terms presents a pure question of law that we review de novo. (See Lopez v. Ledesma (2022) 12 Cal.5th 848, 857, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 505 P.3d 212.)

1. “Dilution”
In plaintiffs' view, proof of racially polarized voting, in itself, establishes “dilution” within the meaning of the CVRA.

They rely on the “plain language” of Elections Code section 14028, subdivision (a), which provides, “A violation of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision ....” (Italics added.) According to plaintiffs, “Section 14028 expressly states how a violation of Section 14027 is shown” — i.e., simply by demonstrating the existence of racially polarized voting in an at-large jurisdiction.
[8] [9] [10] When considered in isolation, this single sentence might arguably be susceptible to plaintiffs' reading.

However, a court construing a statute does not view a
fragment in isolation, but considers the statute as a whole, in context with related provisions and the overall statutory structure, so that it may best identify and effectuate the scheme's underlying purpose. (See People v. Pennington
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 786, 795, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 448, 400 P.3d

14.) As plaintiffs concede, and as the legislative history reveals, the CVRA is in many ways “very similar” to the VRA. (Governor's Off. of Planning & Research, Enrolled
Bill Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001–2002 Reg. Sess.) July 1, 2002, p. 4.) When we construe “dilution” under the
CVRA, we must therefore be mindful that it is a term of art with a settled meaning under section 2 of the VRA: “ ‘The phrase vote dilution itself suggests a norm with respect to which the fact of dilution may be ascertained.’ ” ( Holder v. Hall (1994) 512 U.S. 874, 880, 114 S.Ct. 2581, 129
L.Ed.2d 687 (plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.).) To establish vote dilution under the VRA, “a court must find a reasonable alternative practice as a benchmark ***331 against which to measure the existing voting practice.” ( Holder, at p. 880, 114 S.Ct. 2581 (plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.); id. at p. 887, 114 S.Ct. 2581 (conc. opn. of O'Connor, J.) [“On this, there is general agreement”]; id. at p. 951, 114 S.Ct. 2581 (dis. opn. of Blackmun, J.) [“There is widespread agreement”].) So while the existence of racially polarized voting “ ‘is relevant to a vote dilution claim’ ” under the VRA (
Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 55, 106 S.Ct. 2752) — and is indeed “a key element” ( ibid.) — it is not in itself
sufficient.
[11] We find, for several reasons, the same is true under the CVRA. The similarities between the two schemes strongly suggest that “dilution” requires not only a showing that racially polarized voting exists, but also that the protected class thereby has less ability to elect its preferred candidate or *315 influence the election's outcome than it would have if the at-large system had not been adopted. (Cf. Ferra v.

Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858, 874,
280 Cal.Rptr.3d 783, 489 P.3d 1166 [concluding that the Legislature intended to adopt the “ ‘widely understood’ ” PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 214 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 meaning of a term in federal law]; Davis v. City of
Berkeley (1988) 47 Cal.3d 512, 533, 253 Cal.Rptr. 839, 765 P.2d 46 [concluding that undefined “terms of art” in a statute refer to the definitions provided by federal law].) Although the legislative history materials can be read in different ways, one committee analysis recognized that the CVRA targets racially polarized voting in at-large elections only “if it Impairs the Right of Protected Groups” to elect their
preferred candidates or influence the outcome of an election. (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976, supra, as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2.) After all, “the very concept of vote dilution implies — and, indeed, necessitates — the existence of an ‘undiluted’ practice against which the fact of dilution may be measured.” ( **65 Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd. (1997) 520 U.S. 471, 480, 117 S.Ct. 1491, 137 L.Ed.2d 730.)
[12] Plaintiffs' construction would allow a party to prevail based solely on proof of racially polarized voting that could not be remedied or ameliorated by any other electoral
system. Moreover, such a construction would render the
word “dilution” in Elections Code section 14027 surplusage.

Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Appeal that dilution is a separate element under the CVRA. To establish the
dilution element, a plaintiff in a CVRA action must identify “a reasonable alternative voting practice” to the existing atlarge electoral system that will “serve as the benchmark ‘undiluted’ voting practice.” (Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., supra, 520 U.S. at p. 480, 117 S.Ct. 1491.)

2. “The Ability ... to Elect Candidates of Its Choice”
The CVRA does not explicitly define what it means to
“impair[ ] the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice.” (Elec. Code, § 14027.) On this question, we find the VRA illuminating, but not dispositive.
[13] An at-large electoral system impairs a protected class's ability “to elect representatives of their choice” under the federal act ( 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b)) only when the class can “demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and
geographically compact to constitute a majority in a singlemember district.” ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) The rationale for the VRA approach is that “if the minority group is spread evenly throughout a
multimember district, or if, although geographically
compact, the minority group is so small in relation to the surrounding white population that it could not constitute ***332 a majority in a single-member district, these minority voters *316 cannot maintain that they would have been able to elect representatives of their choice in the absence of the multimember electoral structure.” ( Gingles, at p. 50, fn. 17, 106 S.Ct. 2752.)
For some period after Gingles, it was uncertain whether the first Gingles requirement (i.e., whether the minority group is sufficiently large and compact) could be satisfied by proof that the minority population “is large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with help from voters who are members of the majority and who cross over to support the minority's preferred candidate.” ( Bartlett v. Strickland (2009) 556 U.S. 1, 13, 129 S.Ct. 1231, 173 L.Ed.2d 173
(plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.) ( Strickland).) Strickland
settled the question. It held that the VRA does not impose “a duty to give minority voters the most potential, or the best potential, to elect a candidate by attracting crossover voters.” ( Strickland, at p. 15, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (plur. opn. of
Kennedy, J.).) Dispensing with the requirement that the minority group, by itself, be sufficiently large and compact to constitute a majority in the hypothetical district, the court reasoned, “would call in question the Gingles
framework.” ( Strickland, at p. 16, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.).)
The Court of Appeal effectively embraced the Strickland approach in construing the CVRA. It required a showing that Latino voters could constitute a majority, all by themselves, in a hypothetical single-member district. Indeed, it noted that “30 percent is not enough to win a majority” and rejected plaintiffs' contention that an ability to elect a preferred candidate could be shown in this case if non-Latino voters were to “ ‘cross over’ and vote for Latino candidates,
buoying Latino power and clearing the 50 percent threshold to electoral success.”
The Court of Appeal erred in importing the VRA's majorityminority requirement into the CVRA. In enacting the CVRA, the Legislature wanted to make it “easier” for protected classes to demonstrate an ability to elect their preferred candidates under an alternative voting system. (Assem. Com. on Elections, Reapportionment and Const. Amends.,
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 215 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976, supra, as amended Mar. 18, 2002, p. 4.) No longer would plaintiffs need to show the protected class was sufficiently large and geographically compact to muster a majority in a hypothetical district: “The fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated may not preclude a finding of
racially polarized voting, or a violation **66 of Section 14027 and this section ....” (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c); see Sen. Com. on Elections and Reapportionment, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001–2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended
May 1, 2001, p. 3 [“Unlike the preconditions established by the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles, this bill does not require that the minority community be geographically compact or concentrated”]; Assem. Com. on Elections,
Reapportionment and Const. *317 Amends., Analysis of Sen.

Bill No. 976, supra, as amended Mar. 18, 2002, p. 4 [“This bill requires that only two of those [ Gingles] conditions be met”].)
The Legislature's rationale for rejecting the majorityminority requirement seems clear enough: It would make little sense to require CVRA plaintiffs to show that the protected class could constitute a majority of a hypothetical district, given that the CVRA is not limited to ability-to-elect claims nor are its remedies limited to district elections. (See, e.g., Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 670, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 [“In a cumulative voting
system, a politically cohesive but geographically dispersed minority group can ***333 elect a single candidate ...
although it would be unable to elect any candidates in a conventional winner-take-all at-large system and could not form a majority in any feasible district in a district system”].) Though the parties have focused in this court on district elections, the trial court found that, in addition to district elections, several alternative at-large election methods — cumulative voting, 6limited voting, 7 and ranked choice voting 8 — would each enhance Latino voting power and
their ability to elect candidates of their choice. None of these methods would require a winning candidate to muster a
majority in a hypothetical district. We can think of no reason why a CVRA claim based on any of these alternate at-large election methods should depend on such a showing. (Cf.

Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c) [“that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated ... may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy”].)
Furthermore, the Legislature clearly intended to make the CVRA more expansive than the VRA — by, for example,
explicitly recognizing claims based on dilution of the “ability to influence the outcome of an election.” (Elec. Code, § 14027.)
Even in the context of district elections, the Court of Appeal's focus on a majority-minority district was
misguided. The Court of Appeal feared that allowing a
plaintiff to rely on crossover votes “arbitrarily embraces racially polarized voting when it helps and abandons it when it hurts,” which it viewed as creating “a manipulable
standard boiling down to plaintiff always wins.” But far from embracing racially polarized voting “when it *318 helps” and abandoning it “when it hurts,” plaintiffs are merely pointing out the differing effects of racially polarized voting in two different settings. To challenge an at-large electoral system, a plaintiff must first demonstrate the existence of racially polarized voting — i.e., cognizable differences “in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate.” (Elec. Code, § 14026, subd. (e).) The plaintiff must next show that the protected class would have the potential to elect its preferred candidate or candidates under a different electoral system (say, district elections). In calculating the protected class's voting strength under the alternative system, the plaintiff does not “abandon[ ]” racially polarized voting. Rather, the plaintiff must **67 prove that, assuming the same degree of racial polarization, the greater concentration of protected class voters in the hypothetical district would nonetheless be sufficient to enable them to elect their preferred candidate when
combined with the available crossover votes. Alternatively, the plaintiff may be able to demonstrate sufficient voting strength where racially polarized voting by other ***334 voters in the hypothetical district is lower than in the community as a whole. In neither instance is the plaintiff seeking to “abandon” racially polarized voting “when it hurts.”9
[14] The City's position in this court is slightly more nuanced, but no more persuasive. The City allows that there may be “room to expand vote-dilution claims beyond section 2's narrow ambit,” but only “where the relevant minority group would account for a near-majority of voters in a hypothetical district with a history of reliable crossover support from PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 216 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 other voters.” The City does not dispute, however, that defining a near majority presents a new set of line-drawing problems. And in any case the CVRA permits consideration of at-large remedies such as cumulative voting, limited voting, or ranked choice voting — none of which would
depend on the existence of a near majority in some
hypothetical district that would never be drawn or used. *319 These omissions counsel against adoption of the City's position. Rather than quibble over whether a protected class falls on one side or the other of an undefined near-majority line, we think it more sensible to inquire directly whether the prospect of crossover support from other voters under a lawful alternative electoral scheme would offer the protected class, whatever its size, the potential to elect its preferred candidate. When the hypothetical alternative is district elections, a high degree of racially polarized voting may, in many cases, effectively require the protected class to
constitute a substantial or very substantial minority of voters.

The higher the degree of racial polarization, the greater the percentage required by the protected class to demonstrate it would be able, in combination with crossover voters, to elect its preferred candidate. But there is no reason to layer this inquiry with an additional predicate showing of some
undefined near majority. All that is required is that the protected class be “sufficiently large ... to elect candidates of its choice,” even if it falls short of “an absolute majority of the relevant population.” ( De Grandy, supra, 512 U.S. at pp. 1008, 1009, 114 S.Ct. 2647.)10
We are also sensitive to the fact that Gingles's majorityminority requirement is a poor fit for the CVRA, which applies ***335 exclusively to nonpartisan elections. (See Cal. Const., art. II, § 6.) In the City, for example, multiple candidates may vie for office, and a plurality can be
sufficient to win. Requiring a protected class to demonstrate it could constitute a majority or near-majority of a
hypothetical district would impose a threshold far higher than what the protected class's preferred candidate would actually need to be **68 elected. (See Romero v. City of Pomona (9th Cir. 1989) 883 F.2d 1418, 1424, fn. 7 [“Less than a majority, of course, might suffice in a district where candidates are elected by plurality”], overruled on other grounds in Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp. (9th
Cir. 1990) 929 F.2d 1358, 1363.) We therefore decline to require a protected class demonstrate it would constitute a majority or near majority of a hypothetical district in all circumstances.

3. “Dilution” of “the Ability ... to Elect Candidates of Its Choice”
[15] Accordingly, to establish dilution of a protected class's ability to elect its preferred candidate under the CVRA, a plaintiff must demonstrate “the potential to elect
representatives” under some lawful alternative electoral *320 method. ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 50, fn. 17, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) One way to demonstrate the class's potential to elect its preferred candidates would be to show, as the VRA requires, that the class would be “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a singlemember district.” ( Gingles, at p. 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) But that is not the only way. (See Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c).) Because the CVRA applies exclusively to nonpartisan
elections, where there may be more than two candidates, the winner may prevail with far less than a majority of the vote.

Moreover, the protected class may be able to demonstrate its ability to attract crossover votes for its preferred candidate.

Finally, a plaintiff may identify nondistrict remedies that would enable the class, on its own or with the assistance of crossover votes, to elect its preferred candidate. The minority population percentage necessary to win an election under some alternative at-large electoral systems — cumulative or ranked-choice voting, for example — may be less than 25 percent. (See Dillard v. Chilton County Bd. of Education (M.D.Ala. 1988) 699 F.Supp. 870, 874 ( Dillard) [“in a
jurisdiction with seven seats, the threshold of exclusion[11] would be 12.5% plus” in a cumulative voting system];
Mulroy, The Way Out: A Legal Standard for Imposing
Alternative Electoral Systems as Voting Rights Remedies (1998) 33 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.Rev. 333, 342 [threshold for ranked-choice voting “is identical to that of cumulative voting”].)
Determining whether the protected class has the potential to elect its preferred candidate under some alternative system requires a “ ‘functional’ analysis of the political process” in that locality and a “ ‘searching practical evaluation of the “past and present reality.” ’ ” ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at pp. 62–63, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) Courts should consider the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the particular case PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 217 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 (see, e.g., Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (e)), including the characteristics of the specific locality, its electoral history, and “ ‘an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact’ of the contested electoral mechanisms” as well as the design and impact of the potential alternative system. ( Gingles, at p. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2752; see ***336 Milligan, supra, 599 U.S. 1, 143 S.Ct. 1487 [216 L.Ed.2d at p. 75].) This factspecific inquiry accords with the legislative understanding that California is a large and diverse state that needs a flexible approach to address our changing demographics. (See Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976, supra, as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2 [“In California, we face a unique situation where we are all minorities”].) [16] The key inquiry in establishing dilution of a protected class's ability to elect its preferred candidate under the CVRA, therefore, is what percentage of the vote would be required to win — an inquiry that is not short-circuited *321 merely because the protected class may fall short of an absolute majority (or something close to that). In predicting how many candidates are likely to run and what percentage may be necessary to win, courts may also consider the
experiences of other similar jurisdictions that use district elections or other alternatives to traditional at-large elections.

Courts should likewise keep in mind that the inquiry at the liability **69 stage “is simply ‘to prove that a solution is possible, and not necessarily to present the final solution to the problem.’ ” ( Pope v. County of Albany (2d Cir. 2012) 687 F.3d 565, 576; see Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 50, fn. 17, 106 S.Ct. 2752.)
At the remedial stage the focus will shift to which electoral system is “appropriate” and “tailored to remedy the
violation.” (Elec. Code, § 14029.) If the court selects a district remedy, then there must also be at least two public hearings before the maps are drafted and at least two more hearings once the maps have been drawn and published. (Id., § 10010, subds. (a)(1), (2), (c).) In other words, the remedy the court ends up selecting under section 14029 may, but need not, be the benchmark the plaintiff offered to show the element of dilution.

The Court of Appeal feared that failing to craft a majorityminority requirement “would give a winning cause of action to any group, no matter how small, that can draw a district map that would improve its voting power by any amount, no matter how miniscule.” To prove its point, the court offered a hypothetical in which a protected class's share of the
electorate could increase from 0.1 percent under an at-large system to 1.5 percent in a proposed district. Even though the group's voting power would increase 15-fold, it could have “no practical numerical influence in any voting system” because there would be “simply too few voters ... to be numerically effective in an environment of race-based
voting.” This would, the Court of Appeal warned, “merely ensure plaintiffs always win.”
We agree with the Court of Appeal that a plaintiff cannot prove dilution of its ability to elect its preferred candidate under the CVRA by showing that its voting share would
increase 15-fold, from 0.1 percent to 1.5 percent, in a hypothetical district. In that circumstance, as the Court of Appeal explained, “[t]here are simply too few voters ... to be numerically effective in an environment of race-based
voting.” But it does not follow that a majority (or nearmajority) requirement should be judicially engrafted onto the CVRA. After all, by eliminating Gingles's geographic
compactness requirement, the Legislature rejected any
requirement that the protected class constitute a majority of a hypothetical district. (See Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c).) What enables courts to sort successful claims from
unsuccessful claims is the dilution element itself, which requires the plaintiff to show that the protected class would, under some lawful alternative, have a “real *322 electoral opportunity” to elect its candidate of choice, either on its own or with the aid of crossover voters. ( ***337
LULAC, supra, 548 U.S. at p. 428, 126 S.Ct. 2594; see
Pope v. County of Albany, supra, 687 F.3d at p. 575, fn. 8.)12 [17] The dilution element also ensures the protected class is not made worse off. To replace at-large with district elections under a dilution theory, a successful plaintiff must show not merely that the protected class would have a real electoral opportunity in one or more hypothetical districts, but also that the incremental gain in the class's ability to elect its candidate of choice in such districts would not be offset by a loss of the class's potential to elect its candidates of choice elsewhere in the locality. (Cf. Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003) 539 U.S. 461, 479, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 [“in examining whether the new plan is retrogressive, the inquiry must encompass the entire statewide plan as a whole”].) While “[t]he fact that the proposed remedy does not benefit PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 218 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 all of the [protected class] in the City does not justify denying any remedy at all” (Gomez v. Watsonville (9th Cir. 1988) 863 F.2d 1407, 1414, italics added), it remains the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that some lawful alternative method of election would improve the protected class's
overall ability to elect its preferred candidates. As both sides in this proceeding agree, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a net gain in the protected class's potential to elect candidates under an alternative system, it has not shown the at-large method of election “impairs” the ability of the protected class to elect its preferred **70 candidates. (Elec. Code, § 14027; cf. Beer v. United States (1976) 425 U.S. 130,
141, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629 [“the purpose of § 5 [of the VRA] has always been to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise”].)
We also reject the City's contention that a majority-minority requirement — or something close to it in the form of a nearmajority requirement — is necessary to avoid difficult constitutional questions under the equal protection clause. In the City's view, it would be perilous for courts to draw racebased districts in the absence of a compelling justification. (See Cooper v. Harris (2017) 581 U.S. 285, 291–293, 137 S.Ct. 1455, 197 L.Ed.2d 837.) Merely increasing the
percentage of minority voters in a hypothetical district where “the increase will have no real-world effect,” the City warns, is not a compelling justification. But the CVRA does not require a court to grant relief that has no real world effect. As stated above, the alternative voting system must offer the protected class at least a “potential” to elect its preferred candidates that did not exist under the at-large system. ( *323 Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at p. 50, fn. 17, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) Moreover, nothing in the CVRA requires a
municipality or a court to select a district-based remedy or, even if it chooses to do so, to draw district lines, as the City contends, based “principally on race.” To the contrary:

California law directs that district boundaries comply with the state and federal Constitutions (as well as the VRA) (Elec. Code, § 21621, subd. (b)) and requires, to the extent practicable, that boundaries be “geographically contiguous” and maintain the integrity of “any local neighborhood or local community of interest.” (Id., subd. (c)(1), (2).) State law also encourages district lines to be drawn along ***338 “natural and artificial barriers” and with “geographical compactness.” (Id., subd. (c)(3), (4).) The City does not explain how or why districts drawn in accordance with the above criteria would run afoul of the Constitution. (See Miller v. Johnson (1995) 515 U.S. 900, 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 [“legislatures will ... almost always be aware of racial demographics”]; cf. ibid. [strict scrutiny applies only where “race was the predominant factor
motivating the legislature's decision” and “the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations”].) Indeed, assuming lines are drawn “based on proper factors,” whether to create a district where a protected class has the potential to elect its candidate of choice is “a matter of legislative choice or discretion.” ( Strickland, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 23, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.); see Higginson v.

Becerra (9th Cir. 2019) 786 Fed.Appx. 705, 707–708.) That's precisely the choice the Legislature made in enacting the CVRA: “An at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice ....” (Elec. Code, § 14027.)

4. “Dilution” of “the Ability ... to Influence the Outcome of an Election”
Unlike its federal analogue, the CVRA prohibits the use of an at-large electoral system that dilutes not only the ability of a protected class “to elect candidates of its choice,” but also “its ability to influence the outcome of an election.” (Elec.

Code, § 14027.) The inclusion of the latter phrase further supports our conclusion that the CVRA cannot be read in the limited manner the City would like; indeed, the influence prong suggests a focus broader than the class's ability to elect its preferred candidates (with or without the help of
crossover voters). (Cf. Strickland, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 13, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (plur. opn. of Kennedy, J.) [“a minority group can influence the outcome of an election even if its preferred candidate cannot be elected”]; LULAC, supra,
548 U.S. at pp. 445–446, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (plur. opn. of
Kennedy, J.) [distinguishing between a group's “ability to influence the outcome [of an election] between some
candidates, none of whom is their candidate of choice,” and the ability to elect “their candidate of choice”]; **71 10 Ill.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 219 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 Comp. Stat. 120/5-5(b) [“The phrase *324 ‘influence district’ means a district where a racial minority or language minority can influence the outcome of an election even if its preferred candidate cannot be elected”].) As the Attorney General (who is appearing in this action as amicus curiae) suggests, a protected class's ability to influence the outcome of an election could include, for example, “forming a coalition with another group to elect a candidate acceptable to each” or “blocking an unacceptable candidate.”
We need not decide the scope of the CVRA's ability-toinfluence prong in this case, however. Plaintiffs did not argue in the trial court or in this court an influence theory distinct from their claim that the City's at-large election system diluted their ability to elect their candidates of choice.

III. Conclusion
A group's ability “to compete successfully at electoral politics, in short, is often dependent on how the competition is structured.” (Engstrom, supra, 21 Stetson L.Rev. at p. 743.) The CVRA represents the Legislature's effort to make that competition more fair. It bars the use of an at-large method of election if that method ***339 dilutes a protected class's ability to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election. Dilution occurs when an at-large system denies a protected class the potential to elect its preferred candidate or influence the election's outcome. The plaintiff in a CVRA action must identify a lawful alternative to the existing at-large electoral system that will serve as the benchmark undiluted voting system.

A protected class has the ability to elect its preferred candidate if it would have the potential to elect that
candidate, on its own or with the assistance of crossover support from other voters, under an alternative voting
system; there is no additional requirement that the protected class constitute a majority or near-majority of a hypothetical district. A court presented with a dilution claim should undertake a searching evaluation of the totality of
circumstances (see, e.g., Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (e)), including the characteristics of the specific locality, its electoral history, and the design and impact of the at-large system as well as the potential impact of lawful alternative electoral systems. In predicting how many candidates are likely to run and what percentage may be necessary to win, courts may also consider the experiences of other similar jurisdictions that use district elections or some method other than traditional at-large elections.

We express no view on the ultimate question of whether the City's at-large voting system is consistent with the CVRA.

The parties vigorously contested in the Court of Appeal whether plaintiffs had established two elements of a *325 CVRA claim: whether voting in city council elections was racially polarized and whether the at-large method of
election diluted the voting power of Latino residents in those elections. Because the Court of Appeal concluded that
plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate dilution of the Latino vote, it did not consider whether voting in council elections was racially polarized. We have determined that the Court of Appeal relied on an incorrect legal standard to conclude that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the dilution element of their CVRA claim. Under the circumstances, we find it
appropriate to remand the matter to the Court of Appeal to decide in the first instance whether, under the correct legal standard, plaintiffs have established that at-large elections dilute their ability to elect their preferred candidate; whether plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of racially
polarized voting; and any of the other unresolved issues in the City's appeal. (See Central Coast Forest Assn. v. Fish & Game Com. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 594, 606, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 389 P.3d 840.)
Disposition
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

We Concur:

GUERRERO, C. J.

CORRIGAN, J.

LIU, J.

KRUGER, J.

PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 220 ends

JENKINS, J.

All Citations
15 Cal.5th 292, 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal.

Daily Op. Serv. 8126, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8739
PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 221 ends

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 Footnotes
1 The City asserts that in the 2020 city council election, four and one-half years after plaintiffs filed this action, three of the five winning candidates were Latino. Plaintiffs dispute this characterization of the winning candidates' ethnicities.

Given the limited issue before us, we express no view on the dispute. 2 “In an at-large (or multi-member district) system, all voters elect all representatives, and each voter has as many ballots as there are positions available. This system contrasts with a single-member district plan, under which the entire political jurisdiction is divided into districts roughly equal in population, each of which selects one representative by vote within the district.” ( Badillo v. Stockton (9th Cir. 1992) 956 F.2d 884, 889.) 3 The Senate factors include “the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes; the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.” ( Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at pp. 44–45, 106 S.Ct. 2752.) 4 The CVRA factors include “the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns.” (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (e).) 5 We do not consider here whether the City's elections are racially polarized — an issue the Court of Appeal has not yet addressed — but we do note that, under the CVRA, “[e]lections conducted prior to the filing of an action ... are more probative to establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of the action.” (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (a).)
6 Under cumulative voting, “a voter receives as many votes as there are candidates to elect, but may cast multiple votes for a single candidate.” ( Portugal v. Franklin County (Wash. 2023) 530 P.3d 994, 1002 ( Portugal).) 7 Under limited voting, “a voter receives fewer votes than there are candidates to elect.” ( Portugal, supra, 530 P.3d at p. 1002.)
8 Under ranked choice voting, a voter ranks candidates in order of preference. In an election to fill more than one seat, such as for a city council, each ballot is counted at the start of tabulation as one vote for its first-choice ranked candidate. Any candidate with more votes than the election threshold (see fn. 11, post) is declared elected. If the first round of the vote counting does not fill all the seats, then the system consults the next-ranked choices from the ballots supporting the candidate with the least number of votes, the next-ranked choices from the surplus ballots (i.e., those in excess of what was needed for the elected candidate to win), or both. Jurisdictions use a variety of methods to determine when and how to transfer the nextranked choices from surplus ballots. This form of tabulation continues PGCC 3-6-2024

Page 222 ends

Pacific Grove City CouncilMarch 6, 2024

Pacific Grove City Council
March 6, 2024