13 | Page
April 2018
approach throughout the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison. For example, if the agency uses a home-based VMT for the threshold, it should also be use home-based VMT for calculating project VMT and VMT reduction due to mitigation measures.
Office projects that would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below existing VMT per employee for the region may indicate a significant transportation impact. In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most workers would be expected to live, it might be appropriate to refer to a smaller geography, such as the county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers would be expected to live.
Office VMT screening maps can be developed using tour-based data, considering either total employee VMT or employee work tour VMT. Similarly, tour-based analysis of office project VMT could consider either total employee VMT or employee work tour VMT. Where tour-based information is unavailable for threshold determination, project assessment, or assessment of mitigation, home-based work trip VMT should be used throughout all steps of the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison.
Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new trips, 10 estimating the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project) is the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts.
By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact. Where such development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less-than-significant.
Many cities and counties define local-serving and regional-serving retail in their zoning codes. Lead agencies may refer to those local definitions when available, but should also consider any projectspecific information, such as market studies or economic impacts analyses that might bear on customers’ travel behavior. Because lead agencies will best understand their own communities and the likely travel behaviors of future project users, they are likely in the best position to decide when a
10 Lovejoy, et al., Measuring the impacts of local land-use policies on vehicle miles of travel:
The case of the first big-box store in Davis, California, The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2013.
Recommended threshold for retail projects: A net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.
Recommended threshold for office projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact.
PGCC 8-7-2024
14 | Page
April 2018
project will likely be local-serving. Generally, however, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional-serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT.
Mixed-Use Projects
Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. Combining different land uses and applying one threshold to those land uses may result in an inaccurate impact assessment.
Other Project Types
Of land use projects, residential, office, and retail projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.
For that reason, OPR recommends the quantified thresholds described above for purposes of analysis and mitigation. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In developing thresholds for other project types, or thresholds different from those recommended here, lead agencies should consider the purposes described in section 21099 of the Public Resources Code and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7).
Strategies and projects that decrease local VMT but increase total VMT should be avoided. Agencies should consider whether their actions encourage development in a less travel-efficient location by limiting development in travel-efficient locations.
Redevelopment Projects
Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds described above should apply.
If a residential or office project leads to a net increase in VMT, then the project’s VMT per capita (residential) or per employee (office) should be compared to thresholds recommended above. Per capita and per employee VMT are efficiency metrics, and, as such, apply only to the existing project without regard to the VMT generated by the previously existing land use.
If the project leads to a net increase in provision of locally-serving retail, transportation impacts from the retail portion of the development should be presumed to be less than significant. If the project consists of regionally-serving retail, and increases overall VMT compared to with existing uses, then the project would lead to a significant transportation impact.
PGCC 8-7-2024
15 | Page
April 2018
RTP-SCS Consistency (All Land Use Projects)
Section 15125, subdivision (d), of the CEQA Guidelines provides that lead agencies should analyze impacts resulting from inconsistencies with regional plans, including regional transportation plans. For this reason, if a project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the lead agency should evaluate whether that inconsistency indicates a significant impact on transportation.
3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use Plans
As with projects, agencies should analyze VMT outcomes of land use plans over the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography. Analysis of specific plans may employ the same thresholds described above for projects. A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if it is not consistent with the relevant RTP-SCS.
Thresholds for plans in non-MPO areas may be determined on a case-by-case basis.
4. Other Considerations
Rural Projects Outside of MPOs
In rural areas of non-MPO counties (i.e., areas not near established or incorporated cities or towns), fewer options may be available for reducing VMT, and significance thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis. Note, however, that clustered small towns and small town main streets may have substantial VMT benefits compared to isolated rural development, similar to the transit oriented development described above.
Impacts to Transit
Because criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote “the development of multimodal transportation networks” pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099, subd. (b)(1), lead agencies should consider project impacts to transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian networks. For example, a project that blocks access to a transit stop or blocks a transit route itself may interfere with transit functions. Lead agencies should consult with transit agencies as early as possible in the development process, particularly for projects that are located within one half mile of transit stops.
When evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. An infill development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds PGCC 8-7-2024
16 | Page
April 2018
destinations, improving proximity and accessibility. Such development also improves regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network.
Increased demand throughout a region may, however, cause a cumulative impact by requiring new or additional transit infrastructure. Such impacts may be adequately addressed through a fee program that fairly allocates the cost of improvements not just to projects that happen to locate near transit, but rather across a region to all projects that impose burdens on the entire transportation system, since transit can broadly improve the function of the transportation system.
F. Considering the Effects of Transportation Projects on Vehicle Travel Many transportation projects change travel patterns. A transportation project which leads to additional vehicle travel on the roadway network, commonly referred to as “induced vehicle travel,” would need to quantify the amount of additional vehicle travel in order to assess air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions impacts, energy impacts, and noise impacts. Transportation projects also are required to examine induced growth impacts under CEQA. (See generally, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21065 [defining “project” under CEQA as an activity as causing either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change], 21065.3 [defining “project-specific effect” to mean all direct or indirect environmental effects], 21100, subd. (b) [required contents of an EIR].) For any project that increases vehicle travel, explicit assessment and quantitative reporting of the amount of additional vehicle travel should not be omitted from the document; such information may be useful and necessary for a full understanding of a project’s environmental impacts. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, 21001, 21001.1, 21002, 21002.1 [discussing the policies of CEQA].) A lead agency that uses the VMT metric to assess the transportation impacts of a transportation project may simply report that change in VMT as the impact. When the lead agency uses another metric to analyze the transportation impacts of a roadway project, changes in amount of vehicle travel added to the roadway network should still be analyzed and reported. (See, e.g., California Department of Transportation, Guidance for Preparers of Growth-related, Indirect Impact Analyses (2006).)
While CEQA does not require perfection, it is important to make a reasonably accurate estimate of transportation projects’ effects on vehicle travel in order to make reasonably accurate estimates of GHG emissions, air quality emissions, energy impacts, and noise impacts. (See, e.g., California Clean Energy Com. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 210 [EIR failed to consider project’s transportation energy impacts]; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 266.) Appendix 2 describes in detail the causes of induced vehicle travel, the robust empirical evidence of induced vehicle travel, and how models and research can be used in conjunction to quantitatively assess induced vehicle travel with reasonable accuracy.
If a project would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel, the lead agency should conduct an analysis assessing the amount of vehicle travel the project will induce. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel generally include:
PGCC 8-7-2024
17 | Page
April 2018
• Addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges Projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis, include:
• Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways, roadways, bridges, culverts, tunnels, transit systems, and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity
• Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes
• Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety • Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn pockets, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes
• Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit • Conversion of existing general purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel
• Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles • Reduction in number of through lanes
• Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles • Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features
• Traffic metering systems
• Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow • Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles
• Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices • Adoption of or increase in tolls
• Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase • Initiation of new transit service
• Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in number of traffic lanes
• Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces • Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs) • Addition of traffic wayfinding signage
PGCC 8-7-2024
18 | Page
April 2018
• Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity • Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way
• Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel • Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure • Addition of passing lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor
1. Recommended Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects As noted in Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies for roadway capacity projects have discretion, consistent with CEQA and planning requirements, to choose which metric to use to evaluate transportation impacts. This section recommends considerations for evaluating impacts using vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies have discretion to choose a threshold of significance for transportation projects as they do for other types of projects. As explained above, Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), provides that criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Whether adopting a threshold of significance, or evaluating transportation impacts on a case-by-case basis, a lead agency should ensure that the analysis addresses:
• Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the transportation project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subds. (d), (h))
• Near-term and long-term effects of the transportation project (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (a)(1), 15126.2, subd. (a))
• The transportation project’s consistency with state greenhouse gas reduction goals (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21099)11
• The impact of the transportation project on the development of multimodal transportation networks (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099)
11 The Air Resources Board has ascertained, in The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (p. 116) and Mobile Source Strategy (p. 37), the limits of VMT growth compatible with California containing greenhouse gas emissions to levels research shows would allow for climate stabilization. The Staff Report on Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets (Figure 1, p. 10, and Figure 2, p. 23), illustrates that Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies will fall short of achieving GHG reductions research says is needed to achieve climate stabilization, so OPR recommends not basing transportation project thresholds on those documents.
PGCC 8-7-2024
19 | Page
April 2018
• The impact of the transportation project on the development of a diversity of land uses (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21099)
The recommendations in this technical advisory may be updated over time.
2. Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects
CEQA requires analysis of a project’s potential growth-inducing impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(5); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (d).) Many agencies are familiar with the analysis of growth inducing impacts associated with water, sewer, and other infrastructure. This technical advisory addresses growth that may be expected from roadway expansion projects.
Because a roadway expansion project can induce substantial VMT, incorporating quantitative estimates of induced VMT is critical to calculating both transportation and other impacts of these projects.
Induced travel also has the potential to reduce or eliminate congestion relief benefits. An accurate estimate of induced travel is needed to accurately weigh costs and benefits of a highway capacity expansion project.
The effect of a transportation project on vehicle travel should be estimated using the “change in total VMT” method described in Appendix 1. This means that an assessment of total VMT without the project and an assessment with the project should be made; the difference between the two is the amount of VMT attributable to the project. The assessment should cover the full area in which driving patterns are expected to change. As with other types of projects, the VMT estimation should not be truncated at a modeling or jurisdictional boundary for convenience of analysis when travel behavior is substantially affected beyond that boundary.
Transit and Active Transportation Projects
Transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. Streamlining transit and active transportation projects aligns with each of the three statutory goals contained in SB 743 by reducing GHG emissions, increasing multimodal transportation networks, and facilitating mixed use development.
Roadway Projects
Reducing roadway capacity (for example, by removing or repurposing motor vehicle travel lanes) will generally reduce VMT and therefore is presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. Generally, no transportation analysis is needed for such projects.
PGCC 8-7-2024
20 | Page
April 2018
Building new roadways, adding roadway capacity in congested areas, or adding roadway capacity to areas where congestion is expected in the future, typically induces additional vehicle travel. For the types of projects previously indicated as likely to lead to additional vehicle travel, an estimate should be made of the change in vehicle travel resulting from the project.
For projects that increase roadway capacity, lead agencies can evaluate induced travel quantitatively by applying the results of existing studies that examine the magnitude of the increase of VMT resulting from a given increase in lane miles. These studies estimate the percent change in VMT for every percent change in miles to the roadway system (i.e., “elasticity”). (See U.C. Davis, Institute for Transportation Studies, Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, (October 2015); Boarnet and Handy, Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, September 30, 2014.) Given that lead agencies have discretion in choosing their methodology, and the studies on induced travel reveal a range of elasticities, lead agencies may appropriately apply professional judgment in studying the transportation effects of a particular project. The most recent major study (Duranton and Turner, 2011), estimates an elasticity of 1.0, meaning that every percent change in lane miles results in a one percent increase in VMT.
This method would not be suitable for rural (non-MPO) locations in the state which are neither congested nor projected to become congested. It also may not be suitable for a new road that provides new connectivity across a barrier (e.g., a bridge across a river) if it would be expected to substantially shorten existing trips. If it is likely to be substantial, the trips-shortening effect should be examined explicitly.
The effects of roadway capacity on vehicle travel can also be applied at a programmatic level. For example, in a regional planning process the lead agency can use that program-level analysis to streamline later project-level analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15168.) A program-level analysis of VMT should include effects of the program on land use patterns, and the VMT that results from those land use effects. In order for a program-level document to adequately analyze potential induced demand To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:
1. Determine the total lane-miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).
2. Determine the percent change in total lane miles that will result from the project.
3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area.
4. Multiply the percent increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature:
[% increase in lane miles] x [existing VMT] x [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project] PGCC 8-7-2024
21 | Page
April 2018
from a project or program of roadway capacity expansion, lead agencies cannot assume a fixed land use pattern (i.e., a land use pattern that does not vary in response to the provision of roadway capacity). A proper analysis should account for land use investment and development pattern changes that react in a reasonable manner to changes in accessibility created by transportation infrastructure investments (whether at the project or program level).
Mitigation and Alternatives
Induced VMT has the potential to reduce or eliminate congestion relief benefits, increase VMT, and increase other environmental impacts that result from vehicle travel.12 If those effects are significant, the lead agency will need to consider mitigation or alternatives. In the context of increased travel that is induced by capacity increases, appropriate mitigation and alternatives that a lead agency might consider include the following:
• Tolling new lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements • Converting existing general purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes • Implementing or funding off-site travel demand management • Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies to improve passenger throughput on existing lanes
Tolling and other management strategies can have the additional benefit of preventing congestion and maintaining free-flow conditions, conferring substantial benefits to road users as discussed above.
G. Analyzing Other Impacts Related to Transportation
While requiring a change in the methodology of assessing transportation impacts, Public Resources Code section 21099 notes that this change “does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a project’s potentially significant transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation.” OPR expects that lead agencies will continue to address mobile source emissions in the air quality and noise sections of an environmental document and the corresponding studies that support the analysis in those sections. Lead agencies should continue to address environmental impacts of a proposed project pursuant to CEQA’s requirements, using a format that is appropriate for their particular project.
Because safety concerns result from many different factors, they are best addressed at a programmatic level (i.e., in a general plan or regional transportation plan) in cooperation with local governments,
12 See Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, National Center for Sustainable Transportation, October 2015, available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015- NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf; see Duranton and Turner, The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, 2011, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376.
PGCC 8-7-2024
22 | Page
April 2018
metropolitan planning organizations, and, where the state highway system is involved, the California Department of Transportation. In most cases, such an analysis would not be appropriate on a projectby-project basis. Increases in traffic volumes at a particular location resulting from a project typically cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or precision to provide useful information for an analysis of safety concerns. Moreover, an array of factors affect travel demand (e.g., strength of the local economy, price of gasoline), causing substantial additional uncertainty. Appendix B of the General Plan Guidelines summarizes research which could be used to guide a programmatic analysis under CEQA. Lead agencies should note that automobile congestion or delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact (Pub. Resources Code, §21099(b)(2)), and safety should not be used as a proxy for road capacity.
H. VMT Mitigation and Alternatives
When a lead agency identifies a significant impact, it must identify feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce that impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (a).) Additionally, CEQA requires that an environmental impact report identify feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts.
Indeed, the California Court of Appeal recently held that a long-term regional transportation plan was deficient for failing to discuss an alternative which could significantly reduce total vehicle miles traveled.
In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments, et al. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, the court found that omission “inexplicable” given the lead agency’s “acknowledgment in its Climate Action Strategy that the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 436.) Additionally, the court noted that the project alternatives focused primarily on congestion relief even though “the [regional] transportation plan is a long-term and congestion relief is not necessarily an effective longterm strategy.” (Id. at p. 437.) The court concluded its discussion of the alternatives analysis by stating:
“Given the acknowledged long-term drawbacks of congestion relief alternatives, there is not substantial evidence to support the EIR’s exclusion of an alternative focused primarily on significantly reducing vehicle trips.” (Ibid.)
Several examples of potential mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled are described below. However, the selection of particular mitigation measures and alternatives are left to the discretion of the lead agency, and mitigation measures may vary, depending on the proposed project and significant impacts, if any. Further, OPR expects that agencies will continue to innovate and find new ways to reduce vehicular travel.
Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to:
• Improve or increase access to transit.
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare.
PGCC 8-7-2024
23 | Page
April 2018
• Incorporate affordable housing into the project.
• Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network.
• Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service. • Provide traffic calming.
• Provide bicycle parking.
• Limit or eliminate parking supply.
• Unbundle parking costs.
• Provide parking or roadway pricing or cash-out programs. • Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program. • Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs. • Provide transit passes.
• Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services. • Providing telework options.
• Providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle.
• Providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms.
• Providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites. • Providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.
Notably, because VMT is largely a regional impact, regional VMT-reduction programs may be an appropriate form of mitigation. In lieu fees have been found to be valid mitigation where there is both a commitment to pay fees and evidence that mitigation will actually occur. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 140-141; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728.) Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(3) [a “project’s incremental contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact”].) The mitigation program must undergo CEQA evaluation, either on the program as a whole, or the in-lieu fees or other mitigation must be evaluated on a project-specific basis. (California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026.) That CEQA evaluation could be part of a larger program, such as a regional transportation plan, analyzed in a Program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168.)
Examples of project alternatives that may reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to:
• Locate the project in an area of the region that already exhibits low VMT. • Locate the project near transit.
• Increase project density.
• Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project’s surroundings.
PGCC 8-7-2024
24 | Page
April 2018
• Increase connectivity and/or intersection density on the project site. • Deploy management strategies (e.g., pricing, vehicle occupancy requirements) on roadways or roadway lanes.
PGCC 8-7-2024
25 | Page
April 2018
Appendix 1. Considerations About Which VMT to Count
Consistent with the obligation to make a good faith effort to disclose the environmental consequences of a project, lead agencies have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate project impacts.13 A lead agency can evaluate a project’s effect on VMT in numerous ways. The purpose of this document is to provide technical considerations in determining which methodology may be most useful for various project types.
Background on Estimating Vehicle Miles Traveled
Before discussing specific methodological recommendations, this section provides a brief overview of modeling and counting VMT, including some key terminology.
Here is an illustrative example of some methods of estimating vehicle miles traveled. Consider the following hypothetical travel day (all by automobile):
1. Residence to Coffee Shop
2. Coffee Shop to Work
3. Work to Sandwich Shop
4. Sandwich Shop to Work
5. Work to Residence
6. Residence to Store
7. Store to Residence
Trip-based assessment of a project’s effect on travel behavior counts VMT from individual trips to and from the project. It is the most basic, and traditionally the most common, method of counting VMT. A trip-based VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 5, 6 and
7. For residential projects, the sum of home-based trips is called home-based VMT.
A tour-based assessment counts the entire home-back-to-home tour that includes the project. A tourbased VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in one tour, and 6 and 7 in a second tour. A tour-based assessment of the workplace would include segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Together, all tours comprise household VMT.
13 The California Supreme Court has explained that when an agency has prepared an environmental impact report:
[T]he issue is not whether the [lead agency’s] studies are irrefutable or whether they could have been better. The relevant issue is only whether the studies are sufficiently credible to be considered as part of the total evidence that supports the [lead agency’s] finding[.]
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 409; see also Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 372.) PGCC 8-7-2024
26 | Page
April 2018
Both trip- and tour-based assessments can be used as measures of transportation efficiency, using denominators such as per capita, per employee, or per person-trip.
Trip- and Tour-based Assessment of VMT
As illustrated above, a tour-based assessment of VMT is a more complete characterization of a project’s effect on VMT. In many cases, a project affects travel behavior beyond the first destination. The location and characteristics of the home and workplace will often be the main drivers of VMT. For example, a residential or office development located near high quality transit will likely lead to some commute trips utilizing transit, affecting mode choice on the rest of the tour.
Characteristics of an office project can also affect an employee’s VMT beyond the work tour. For example, a workplace located at the urban periphery, far from transit, can require an employee to own a car, which in turn affects the entirety of an employee’s travel behavior and VMT. For this reason, when estimating the effect of an office development on VMT, it may be appropriate to consider total employee VMT if data and tools, such as tour-based models, are available. This is consistent with CEQA’s requirement to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of a project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).)
Assessing Change in Total VMT
A third method, estimating the change in total VMT with and without the project, can evaluate whether a project is likely to divert existing trips, and what the effect of those diversions will be on total VMT.
This method answers the question, “What is the net effect of the project on area VMT?” As an illustration, assessing the total change in VMT for a grocery store built in a food desert that diverts trips from more distant stores could reveal a net VMT reduction. The analysis should address the full area over which the project affects travel behavior, even if the effect on travel behavior crosses political boundaries.
Using Models to Estimate VMT
Travel demand models, sketch models, spreadsheet models, research, and data can all be used to calculate and estimate VMT (see Appendix F of the preliminary discussion draft). To the extent possible, lead agencies should choose models that have sensitivity to features of the project that affect VMT.
Those tools and resources can also assist in establishing thresholds of significance and estimating VMT reduction attributable to mitigation measures and project alternatives. When using models and tools for those various purposes, agencies should use comparable data and methods, in order to set up an “apples-to-apples” comparison between thresholds, VMT estimates, and VMT mitigation estimates.
Models can work together. For example, agencies can use travel demand models or survey data to estimate existing trip lengths and input those into sketch models such as CalEEMod to achieve more PGCC 8-7-2024
27 | Page
April 2018
accurate results. Whenever possible, agencies should input localized trip lengths into a sketch model to tailor the analysis to the project location. However, in doing so, agencies should be careful to avoid double counting if the sketch model includes other inputs or toggles that are proxies for trip length (e.g., distance to city center). Generally, if an agency changes any sketch model defaults, it should record and report those changes for transparency of analysis. Again, trip length data should come from the same source as data used to calculate thresholds to be sure of an “apples-to-apples” comparison.
Additional background information regarding travel demand models is available in the California Transportation Commission’s “2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines,” beginning at page 35.
PGCC 8-7-2024
28 | Page
April 2018
Appendix 2. Induced Travel: Mechanisms, Research, and Additional Assessment Approaches Induced travel occurs where roadway capacity is expanded in an area of present or projected future congestion. The effect typically manifests over several years. Lower travel times make the modified facility more attractive to travelers, resulting in the following trip-making changes:
● Longer trips. The ability to travel a long distance in a shorter time increases the attractiveness of destinations that are farther away, increasing trip length and vehicle travel. ● Changes in mode choice. When transportation investments are devoted to reducing automobile travel time, travelers tend to shift toward automobile use from other modes, which increases vehicle travel.
● Route changes. Faster travel times on a route attract more drivers to that route from other routes, which can increase or decrease vehicle travel depending on whether it shortens or lengthens trips.
● Newly generated trips. Increasing travel speeds can induce additional trips, which increases vehicle travel. For example, an individual who previously telecommuted or purchased goods on the internet might choose to accomplish those tasks via automobile trips as a result of increased speeds.
● Land Use Changes. Faster travel times along a corridor lead to land development farther along that corridor; that new development generates and attracts longer trips, which increases vehicle travel. Over several years, this induced growth component of induced vehicle travel can be substantial, making it critical to include in analyses.
Each of these effects has implications for the total amount of vehicle travel. These effects operate over different time scales. For example, changes in mode choice might occur immediately, while land use changes typically take a few years or longer. CEQA requires lead agencies to analyze both short-term and long-term effects.
Evidence of Induced Vehicle Travel. A large number of peer reviewed studies14 have demonstrated a causal link between highway capacity increases and VMT increases. Many provide quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the induced VMT phenomenon. Collectively, they provide high quality evidence of the existence and magnitude of the induced travel effect.
Most of these studies express the amount of induced vehicle travel as an “elasticity,” which is a multiplier that describes the additional vehicle travel resulting from an additional lane mile of roadway capacity added. For example, an elasticity of 0.6 would signify an 0.6 percent increase in vehicle travel for every 1.0 percent increase in lane miles. Many of these studies distinguish “short run elasticity” (increase in vehicle travel in the first few years) from “long run elasticity” (increase in vehicle travel
14 See, for example, Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief (CARB, Sept. 30, 2014) and Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion (National Center for Sustainable Transportation, Oct. 2015).
PGCC 8-7-2024
29 | Page
April 2018
beyond the first few years). Long run elasticity is larger than short run elasticity, because as time passes, more of the components of induced vehicle travel materialize. Generally, short run elasticity can be thought of as excluding the effects of land use change, while long run elasticity includes them. Most studies find a long run elasticity between 0.6 and just over 1.0 (See Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief, p. 2.), meaning that every increase in lanes miles of one percent leads to an increase in vehicle travel of 0.6 to 1.0 percent. The most recent major study (Duranton and Turner, The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion:
Evidence from US Cities, 2011) finds the elasticity of vehicle travel by lanes miles added to be 1.03; in other words, each percent increase in lane miles results in a 1.03 percent increase in vehicle travel. (An elasticity greater than 1.0 can occur because new lanes induce vehicle travel that spills beyond the project location.) In CEQA analysis, the long-run elasticity should be used, as it captures the full effect of the project rather than just the early-stage effect.
Quantifying Induced Vehicle Travel Using Models. Lead agencies can generally achieve the most accurate assessment of induced vehicle travel resulting from roadway capacity increasing projects by applying elasticities from the academic literature, because those estimates include vehicle travel resulting from induced land use. If a lead agency chooses to use a travel demand model, additional analysis would be needed to account for induced land use. This section describes some approaches to undertaking that additional analysis.
Proper use of a travel demand model can capture the following components of induced VMT:
• Trip length (generally increases VMT)
• Mode shift (generally shifts from other modes toward automobile use, increasing VMT) • Route changes (can act to increase or decrease VMT)
• Newly generated trips (generally increases VMT)
o Note that not all travel demand models have sensitivity to this factor, so an off-model estimate may be necessary if this effect could be substantial.
However, estimating long-run induced VMT also requires an estimate of the project’s effects on land use. This component of the analysis is important because it has the potential to be a large component of the overall induced travel effect. Options for estimating and incorporating the VMT effects that are caused by the subsequent land use changes include:
1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel. Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using elasticities found in the academic literature.
2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research. If the travel demand model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes resulting from the project, the PGCC 8-7-2024
30 | Page
April 2018
assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment should fall within the range found in the academic literature.
3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result.
A project which provides new connectivity across a barrier, such as a new bridge across a river, may provide a shortened path between existing origins and destinations, thereby shortening existing trips. In some cases, this trip-shortening effect might be substantial enough to reduce the amount of vehicle travel resulting from the project below the range found in the elasticities in the academic literature, or even lead a net reduction in vehicle travel overall. In such cases, the trip-shortening effect could be examined explicitly.
Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis that might cause substantial errors in the VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and noise.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Agenda No. 9 D
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: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: Tree Maintenance Services Agreement
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Topes Tree Service Inc. to provide Tree Maintenance Services for trees in the public right-of-way and on City-owned properties in an amount not-to-exceed $250,000 per fiscal year, with up to four (4) annual, one-year extensions by mutual letter
1. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute all letters of extension associated with this agreement
3. Alternatively, take other action related to this item
DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining all trees on public land and within the City’s right-of-way. To effectively manage this task, including vertical clearance standards for all city roadways, the city has historically utilized a tree service contractor to supplement staff.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A TREE SERVICE CONTRACTOR
The City’s tree service contractor plays an essential role in maintaining the health and safety of Pacific Grove’s trees. They perform critical maintenance tasks for all trees within public spaces, City facilities, and the City right of way under the guidance and supervision of the City Arborist.
Key Responsibilities:
Pruning & Removal: The contractor performs routine, priority, and emergency pruning and tree removal, including clearing street obstructions.
Additional Services: Other services may include tree planting, staking, pest control, fertilization, and maintenance or removal of trees as needed.
Emergency Response: The contractor also supports emergency response efforts, helping to remove or stabilize hazardous trees and ensuring public safety by addressing tree-related hazards promptly.
Having a skilled contractor for tree maintenance helps our Arborist and staff manage the demanding task of tree care in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title 12, Trees and the Urban Forest, and the City’s Urban Forestry Standards. This partnership ensures our urban forest remains healthy, attractive, and safe.
PGCC 8-7-2024
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE TREE SERVICE CONTRACTOR, ARBORIST, AND
CITY STAFF
The tree service contractor works closely with the City Arborist and staff to ensure all tree maintenance is performed efficiently and to City standards.
Integration Process:
Work Orders: The contractor receives detailed work orders from the City Arborist, outlining required services, location, urgency, and scheduling.
Execution: The contractor schedules and performs the necessary work as instructed.
Monitoring & Review: The City Arborist monitors the progress, reviews the completed work, and checks invoices to ensure alignment with the services performed.
This collaboration ensures that Pacific Grove’s urban landscape remains appealing and safe for residents and visitors. By partnering with a qualified tree service contractor, we enhance our ability to maintain and beautify our community’s natural environment while responding effectively to any tree-related issues.
The City has used the model of harnessing an on-call tree service contractor agreement to complete essential tree maintenance since 2014.
REVISING THE BID PROCESS
In July 2023, the City Council approved a one-year agreement with Topes Tree Service to provide Tree Maintenance Services. However, options to extend this agreement, as originally recommended by staff, were not approved.
During the meeting, the City Council requested that staff revisit the bidding process to make the services and associated fees clearer prior to the issuance of a Call for Bids the following year.
Previously, bids were assessed based on the "total daily rate," which combined labor rates, equipment rates, and "other rates," including emergency callout fees. Historically, the contract was awarded to the bidder with the lowest total daily rate.
Throughout the Fiscal Year, staff reviewed how other municipalities handle their bidding processes and revised the bid sheet for greater clarity. The updated bid sheet now requests hourly rates for specific common activities, such as:
Street Clearance
Tree Trimming
Stump Removal
Tree Watering
Tree Planting, and
Consulting Arborist Services
Additionally, the bid sheet includes separate hourly rates for labor, equipment, and emergency callouts.
The new bidding process specifies that evaluation and selection will consider the contractor's relevant professional experience, staff qualifications, bid pricing, and ability to respond promptly to emergency scenarios.
The revised bid sheet was used for the 2024 BID process. 2024 BID PROCESS
A call for bids was issued on June 11, 2024, and closed on July 10, 2024. 5 proposals were received:
PGCC 8-7-2024
1. Marios Tree Service
2. Community Tree Service
3. West Coast Arborists
4. Topes Tree Service
5. T&S Tree Service LLC
Upon thorough review of the proposals, Topes Tree Service has been selected as the desired firm and stood out among the proposals based upon their:
Prompt Emergency Response: Topes Tree Service demonstrated the ability to respond quickly to emergency requests. They have the advantage of being geographically closest to the City, with the nearest office and yard among all submissions, located in Monterey on Garden Road.
Competitive Pricing: Topes Tree Service provided the most competitive hourly rates, with equipment rates approximately 38% lower and labor rates about 30% lower than the next closest bidder. These reduced hourly rates allow their overall service offerings—such as street clearance, trimming, emergency call-outs, watering, consulting arborist services, and stump removals— to me more cost-effective.
Extensive Experience and Resources: They have vast experience in tree trimming services, along with a robust staff and readily available equipment.
NEXT STEPS
If an agreement is authorized, Staff will prepare an agreement using the City’s standard agreement template, approved by the City Attorney and California Joint Powers Authority (CJPIA), for the Mayor’s signature.
Staff recommends approving the agreement with Topes Tree Service, including options for extensions, because their bid is cost-effective, displays their ability to perform the work and meets the City’s needs.
By approving this agreement with extension options, the City can lock in the competitive pricing from the 2024 proposal, which helps keep costs stable. If the City were to release a new call for bids every year, it would likely lead to increased pricing annually.
OPTIONS
1. Authorize agreement
Do not authorize agreement. Failure to authorize an agreement will result in delays for street clearance and trimming needs.
2. 3. Provide alternative direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is sufficient funding for the Tree Maintenance Services Agreement in the FY24/25 Fiscal Year Public Works Department, Forestry Division budget.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
PGCC 8-7-2024
Agenda No. 10 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: September 2023 through December 2023 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
PC Minutes 9.14.23
PC Minutes 10.05.23
PC Minutes 10.12.23
PC Minutes 10.19.23
PC Minutes 11.09.23
PC Minutes 12.14.23
PGCC 8-7-2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, September 14, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Associate Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following members present in Chamber: Chair Lilley, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Davison and Kubica. Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski were absent.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Commissioner Sawyer requested the commission move Item 9A to 8A.
Action: Commissioner Kubica made a friendly amendment to move Item 9A to 8C. Seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson. Commissioner Kubica requested the commission move Item 9B to 8D.
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Kubica and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, the commission voted to approve the agenda as modified.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kubica, Fredrickson, Sawyer, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Commissioner Sawyer attended the Turner Center for Housing at UC Berkeley. The California Sliding Home Ownership Ladder took place on August 15th. They discussed housing market research and a California program called Dream for All.
Commissioner Sawyer asked if staff knows where to find the draft document from Integral Consulting for the update on the coastal hazards section of the LCP.
Mr. Sidor stated that the consultant is working on the data collection and modeling. Staff anticipates having an administrative draft to review sometime next month.
Commissioner Sawyer asked if the Planning Commission was added to the list of persons interested in receiving CDP applications.
Mr. Sidor stated that the two commissioners who requested to be added to the list were Chair Lilley and Vice Chair Murphy. He clarified that commissioners interested in being added to the list should write an email to staff with that request.
Commissioner Fredrickson met with Jeanne Byrne concerning photos of the project that were not included in the packet.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Chair Lilley announced that on September 6th the City Council unanimously upheld the Commission’s July 13th decision to approve CDP 22-0318 Multiple Locations in the Coastal Zone (Sewer Project).
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Coletti announced that the City Council subcommittee was actively engaged in the recruitment process for an interim City Manager. That announcement was made to the public and available to view on the City’s website.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Written General Public Comment
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Receive correspondence.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
General Public Comment received from:
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
(The Administrative Use Permit for 215 Forest Ave. was called up. See motion below.) Michaela Kenster
Marsha
Tony Ciani
Katie Stern
Lisa Ciani
Mike Gibbs
Action: Ms. Daumer requested that the commission consider calling up the AUP for 215 Forest Ave. The commission discussed the call-up procedure. City Attorney Pierik clarified that it would require at least three commissioners to vote in favor for the call-up to be approved and added to the next available agenda.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer made a motion to call up the AUP for Pop & Hiss located at 215 Forest Ave.
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to approve the call-up of the AUP at 215 Forest Ave.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kubica, Fredrickson, Sawyer, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
PGCC 8-7-2024
A. Planning Commission 2023 Work Plan
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Recommended Action: Receive the revised 2023 Planning Commission Work Plan.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the June 8, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was pulled from the consent agenda and continued to the October 12th PC Meeting.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the June 8, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was pulled from the consent agenda and continued to the October 12th PC Meeting.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Minutes of the August 10, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was pulled from the consent agenda and continued to the October 12th PC Meeting.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the August 10, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Commissioner Sawyer requested the June, July and August PC minutes be pulled from the consent agenda and continued to the October 12th PC Meeting.
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Davison and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to approve the consent agenda as modified.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kubica, Fredrickson, Sawyer, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
PGCC 8-7-2024
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP), Use Permit (UP) and Variance (VAR) No. 22-0284, 773-775 Ocean View Blvd, Pacific Grove (APN 006-071-007)
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR / High Density Residential 24.8 du/ac Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Architectural Permit, Use Permit, and Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0284), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Staff report received from Senior Planner, Mr. Sidor.
Project comments provided by the architect, Jeanne Byrne.
Public comment received from:
Marion Morelli
Judy Cole
Julie Almquist
Marian Moe
Tony Ciani
Darren Tinsley
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Additional project comments provided by the architect, Jeanne Byrne.
Comments provided by the owner, Bart Bruno.
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to accept staff’s recommendation to approve the Architectural Permit, Use Permit, and Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0284), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).
Motion carried 4-1-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kubica, Fredrickson, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: Commissioner Sawyer.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
PGCC 8-7-2024
B. Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Permit 23-0061 for 121 10th Street (APN 006-218-009).
From: Garrett McCown, Assistant Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR/High Density Residential 19.8 DU/ac Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve AP/CDP 23-0061, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA categorical exemption.
Reference: Garrett McCown, Assistant Planner
Commissioner Sawyer recused herself from this project due financial interest.
Staff report received from Senior Planner, Mr. Sidor.
Project comments provided by the architect, Anatoly Ostretsov.
Public comment received from:
Tony Ciani
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Kubica and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, the commission voted to accept staff’s recommendation to approve the AP/CDP 23-0061, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA categorical exemption.
Motion carried 4-0-2-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kubica, Fredrickson, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
RECUSED: Commissioner Sawyer.
C. Revised Cannabis Regulatory Draft Ordinances – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer and Commissioner Kubica, this item was moved from 9A to 8C.
From: Erica Vega, Contract City Attorney
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) Recommended Action: Review and accept all revisions to the Cannabis Regulatory Draft Ordinances and make a recommendation to City Council.
Reference: Erica Vega, Assistant City Attorney
Staff report received from Associate Planner, Mr. Campbell.
Contract City Attorney, Erica Vega made herself available for questions.
Public comment received from:
Mr. Tuminello
PGCC 8-7-2024
Mike Gibbs
Marsha
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Tony Ciani
Terrence Zito
Action: Commissioner Sawyer made a recommendation to strike the word “morals” from Section 23.92.010. City Attorney Vega stated that could be done. Chair Lilley recommended that the word “morals” also be removed from Section 11.100.010.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer made a recommendation to strike B6 regarding design standards in Section 23.92.050.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer made a recommendation to add a reference to the City’s lighting standards in Section 23.92.080.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer made a recommendation to add a reference to the City’s lighting standards in paragraph four of Section 23.92.080.
Action: Chair Lilley made a recommendation to clarify the language regarding the application period in Section 11.100.060 A.
Action: Chair Lilley made a recommendation to add a definition for a “provisional” license in Section 11.100.060 E.
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Davison, the commission voted to accept staff’s revisions, approve the recommended changes as discussed in Chapter 11 and Chapter 23 and transmit the proposed ordinances (with changes) to the City Council.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Sawyer, Kubica, Fredrickson, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
D. Housing Element and General Plan Updates – At the request of Commissioner Kubica, this item was moved from 9B to 8D.
Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Receive written and oral progress reports on the Housing Element and General Plan Updates.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Director Wyatt asked, on behalf of the consultants online, if the commission would be able to hear the remaining items on the agenda. The commission discussed moving Archeological Resources and Tribal Monitoring Protocol above this item.
Action: Director Wyatt shared a brief housing element update. She said a draft document would be released on Monday.
Action: Mr. Campbell shared that there was consensus on a special PC meeting for October 5th and, if needed, October 12th. Director Wyatt shared that they wanted to take the item to Council by October 18th (and potentially again on November 1st) to meet the November 2nd submittal date. So, there would be two Planning Commission meetings PGCC 8-7-2024
added and two Council meetings, if necessary.
Public Comment received from:
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
E. Archeological Resources Review and Tribal Monitoring Protocol From: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive draft protocol and provide comments.
Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Deputy Director Halabi introduced the consultants from Rincon: Hannah Haas, Cultural Resources Program Manager and Senior Archaeologist, and Christopher Duran, Principal and Senior Archaeologist.
Draft protocol received from consultant, Christopher Duran.
Public comment received from:
Adam Pinterits
Tony Ciani
Lisa Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the commission voted to continue this item to the next available meeting, preferably the special meeting on October 19th.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Sawyer, Kubica, Fredrickson, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
F. Boards and Commissions Joint Working Group
From: Cathy Madalone, Chief of Police
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Recommend one Commissioner to voluntarily join the new Boards PGCC 8-7-2024
and Commissions Joint Working Group.
Reference: Cathy Madalone, Chief of Police
This item was continued to the October 19th meeting.
G. Great Tide Pool Property Habitat and Coastal Pathways Concerns Proposed Short and Long Term Mitigations
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Review and discuss possible recommendations to City Council regarding Great Tide Pool Restoration/Enhancement plan
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
This item was continued to the October 19th meeting.
H. Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee - Recommended Zoning Amendments From: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: All
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Continue the proposed Title 23 amendments to the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Mr. Campbell voiced staff’s recommended action to continue the proposed Title 23 Amendments to the November 9th meeting.
Public comment received from:
Tony Ciani
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to continue the proposed Title 23 Amendments and Hotel Parking to the November 9th meeting.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Sawyer, Kubica, Fredrickson, Davison and Chair Lilley.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski.
PGCC 8-7-2024
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Revised Cannabis Regulatory Draft Ordinances – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer and Commissioner Kubica, this item was moved from 9A to 8C.
From: Erica Vega, Contract City Attorney
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) Recommended Action: Review and accept all revisions to the Cannabis Regulatory Draft Ordinances and make a recommendation to City Council.
Reference: Erica Vega, Assistant City Attorney
B. Housing Element and General Plan Updates – At the request of Commissioner Kubica, this item was moved to 8D.
Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Receive written and oral progress reports on the Housing Element and General Plan Updates.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Story Pole Subcommittee
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Story Pole Subcommittee.
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Commissioner Sawyer shared a brief update. She stated that the subcommittee was close to submitting their written story pole protocol.
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Davison, the commission voted to continue the remaining items on the agenda to the October 19th meeting.
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. Nomination and Appointment of a Planning Commission Secretary From: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
PGCC 8-7-2024
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Nominate and appoint a Planning Commission Secretary Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
This item was continued to the October 19th meeting.
11. PRESENTATIONS
12. NEXT MEETING - October 5, 2023
13. ADJOURNMENT – 10:20pm
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 8-7-2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, October 5, 2023, 6:30 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA This meeting was held in Council Chambers and via Zoom webinar.
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. Senior Planner Sidor conducted roll call with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Davison, Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the commission voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Davison, Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Chair Lilley announced the following:
Annie Allenbaugh resigned from Office Assistant in Community Development as she is relocating to another community.
Anastacia Wyatt resigned as Director of the Community Development Department to take a position in another community.
Dan Gho, Public Works Director, will be assisting in managing the day-to-day operations for the Community Development Department. Recruitment is underway to find a director for CDD.
Erica Vega, a partner at Burke, Williams and Sorensen has been appointed Assistant City Attorney and will be assisted by Ephraim Margolin. She will be present at the October 12, 2023 PC Meeting via zoom.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Coletti announced that the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the Cannabis Regulatory Draft Ordinances (Title 11 and 23) and gave direction to amend the proposed ordinances. Those will be coming to Council for first read in November.
PGCC 8-7-2024
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from:
Vincent Tuminello
Tony Ciani
A. Written General Public Comment
(Chair Lilley read the list of residents who provided written general public comment for the meeting.)
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the June 8, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was moved to 8A.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the June 8, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was moved to 8B.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Minutes of the June 8, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the June 8, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Commissioner Sawyer recommended the following changes:
Change public citizen to private citizen so the sentence reads, “Chair Lilley attended as a private citizen.”
Add “was received” to page 7 under C to make it a complete sentence. “An oral report was received.”
At the top of page 11 it should state, “the following individuals.” Action: Chair Lilley recommended the following changes:
Change council chamber to council chambers.
At the top of page 10, in the third line, the words “to the commission” PGCC 8-7-2024
should be omitted.
On page 11, under F, Tony and Lisa Ciani’s name is misspelled and needs to be corrected.
Public comment received from:
Lisa Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
LoboWolf
Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the commission voted to approve the June 8, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes as amended.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Davison, Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
B. Minutes of the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Commissioner Sawyer recommended the following changes:
At the bottom of page 14, delete “that she,” it should just say “attended.” Under 8A, add the following information: “Staff report received by Senior Planner, Mr. Sidor. Applicant, Mark Porter, commented on the project.” One page 17 (8B), add the following information: “Staff report received by Senior Planner, Mr. Sidor. Applicant, Steve Olson, provided project comments.”
On page 18, add Lisa Ciani to public comment.
Under 8D, add the following information: “Mr. Sidor provided the report.
Mr. Gho, Public Works Director, provided project comments.” Under E, add the following information: “Staff report received by Mr.
Campbell. Applicant testimony provided by Mr. Gho, Public Works Director, and Veronica Camp, Seltzer Company Owner.”
Public comment received from:
Lisa Ciani
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to approve the June 8, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes as amended and post them to the City website.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Davison, Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
PGCC 8-7-2024
C. 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the consultant presentation, ask any pertinent questions, provide input on the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element, and take one of the following actions:
1. Hear public comment on the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element and provide a recommendation to the City Council; or
2. Hear public comment on the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element without providing a recommendation to City Council; or
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Chair Lilley discussed the rules for the evening and the role of the Planning Commission in this review.
Senior Planner, Mr. Sidor, thanked residents who provided comments on the draft housing element and introduced Veronica Tam from Rincon Consulting.
A presentation was provided by the consultant, Veronica Tam.
Public comment received from:
Steve Hauk
Ken Hinshaw
Adam Pinterits
Geva Arcanin
Barbara Palmer
Dwight Palmer
Andree Brisson
Pam Tanous
Peggy Gibbs
Vincent Tuminello
Lori Rombi
LoboWolf
Lisa Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Daniel Miller
Paul Walkingstick
Windows11
Marsha
Jane Haines
Dixie Layne
Justin L.
Tony Ciani
Nancy Parsons
Louise Ramirez
Ms. Tam responded to questions from the commission.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Action: Commissioner Kubica recommended adding two sites to be considered for the inventory:
Mission Linen (801 Sunset Drive) and the former La Porte Mansion site (1030 Lighthouse Avenue).
Action: Commissioner Fredrickson recommended removing the NOAA Building (1352 Lighthouse Avenue) from the inventory. He recommended utilizing the upper Forest Ave. Business District for developing those units.
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the commission voted to recommend to City Council that Site 49 (the NOAA Building) be removed from the sites inventory for the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Davison, Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer recommended considering space near the Andronico’s parking lot for development. Commissioner Sawyer asked that objective design standards be included for single family dwellings and guidelines to maintain the historic character in the City.
Action: Commissioner Davison also suggested that mixed use be considered for the shopping centers (e.g. Andronico’s, Safeway and Lucky). He suggested that existing City property (specifically a section of the golf course) be considered for housing development.
Action: Vice Chair Murphy suggested adding an anti-displacement plan for small businesses in the community. He also questioned the possibility of a vacancy tax in the City.
Action: Chair Lilley asked Ms. Tam for definitions of “reuse sites” and “low barrier navigation centers.”
Action: Chair Lilley brought the discussion of Project Homekey to the commission.
Action: Upon motion by Chair Lilley and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, the commission voted to recommend removal of all references to Project Homekey throughout the Draft Housing Element.
Motion carried 5-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica and Sawyer.
NOES: Commissioners Nodzenski and Davison.
ABSENT: None.
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PRESENTATIONS
12. NEXT MEETING - October 12, 2023
13. ADJOURNMENT 10:33 pm
PGCC 8-7-2024
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 8-7-2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, October 12, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Assistant Planner McCown conducted roll call with the following members present in Chamber: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Davison and Kubica. Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski, and Sawyer were absent.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Davison and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the commission voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0-3, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Davison and Kubica.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Chair Lilley announced that on September 14, 2023, the Planning Commission approved an architectural permit and waiver for a project at 773-775 Ocean View Boulevard. After that approval, the project was appealed to the City Council.
Chair Lilley welcomed Attorneys Erica Vega, Assistant City Attorney, and Mary Wagner.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
(Chair Lilley read the list of residents who provided written general public comment for the meeting.)
General public comment received from:
Vince Tuminello
Mike Gibbs
Tony Ciani
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
PGCC 8-7-2024
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element (Continued from the October 5, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting)
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: NoN/AYes
Historic Resources Inventory: NoN/AYes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the 6th Cycle Draft Housing, ask any pertinent questions, and provide input on the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element.
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Mr. Sidor, Senior Planner, shared the recommendation from staff and provided a review of the action taken on the item at the last Planning Commission hearing on October 5th. He introduced Mr. Russell and Veronica Tam from Rincon Consultants.
Public comment received from:
Mike Gibbs
Dwight Palmer
Vince Tuminello
Tony Ciani
William Smith
Lisa Ciani
Kathy Durbin
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Action: Upon motion by Chair Lilley and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council consider four properties as potential additions to the Draft Housing Element Sites Inventory in the event that other properties are removed or otherwise not available to fulfill Pacific Grove's regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) of 1,125 new housing units. The four sites are the Safeway site on Forest Ave, the Country Club Shopping Center site, the Mission Linen property at 801 Sunset Drive, and the LaPorte Mansion property at 1030 Lighthouse Avenue.
Motion carried 4-0-3, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Davison and Kubica.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Davison, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward the commission’s recommendations and the PGCC 8-7-2024
Draft Housing Element (DHE) to the City Council with a recommendation that the City Council accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations and direct staff to submit the DHE to the state.
Motion carried 4-0-3, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Davison and Kubica.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PRESENTATIONS
12. NEXT MEETING - October 19, 2023
13. ADJOURNMENT -8:46 pm
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 8-7-2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, October 19, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Senior Planner Sidor conducted roll call with the following members present in Chamber: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, and Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski and Sawyer. Commissioners Kubica and Fredrickson were absent.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the commission voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) At the October 18, 2023 City Council Meeting, Chair Lilley presented the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the Draft Housing Element (DHE).
Chair Lilley announced that City Council approved a contract with Mr. Lew Bauman to be Interim Community Development Director.
Referring to the interruption during the City Council Meeting’s public comment period, Chair Lilley stated that there is no place for disruptive conduct and that hate speech will not be tolerated in community meetings.
Associate Planner Campbell and Senior Planner Sidor responded to questions and comments from Commissioner Sawyer and Chair Lilley.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Coletti shared that Council voted 4-3 to approve the Draft Housing Element (DHE) with Planning Commission’s recommendations to remove the NOAA site and remove reference to Project Homekey. They also followed the staff’s recommendation to remove the Community Center site. The draft was sent to the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD).
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Receive correspondence.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 8-7-2024
General public comment received from:
Lisa Ciani
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the August 10, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting - At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was pulled from the consent agenda and moved to the regular agenda (10B).
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the August 10, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Planning Commission Call-up of AUP 23-0179; 215 Forest Avenue (APN: 006-282-026) From: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: C-D
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission affirm the Zoning Administrator's decision to issue Administrative Use Permit 23-0179 based upon findings of fact.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Chair Lilley introduced the item and explained how this item came to the Planning Commission.
Staff report received from Mr. Campbell.
On behalf of the applicant, a presentation was provided by Attorney Eric Fonferek.
Public comment received from:
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Tony Ciani
Jenny MacMurdo
Annalisa Miller
Sarah Chance
Katie Stern
Sloan C.
Christine Hara
Lisa Ciani
Unknown speaker
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the commission voted to affirm the Zoning Administrator's decision to issue Administrative Use Permit 23-0179 based upon findings of fact.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
PGCC 8-7-2024
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
B. Boards and Commissions Joint Working Group
From: Cathy Madalone, Chief of Police
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: NoN/AYes
Historic Resources Inventory: NoN/AYes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Recommend one Commissioner to voluntarily join the new Boards and Commissions Joint Working Group.
Reference: Cathy Madalone, Chief of Police
Staff report received from Chief Madalone.
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Commissioner Davison, the commission voted to recommend one commissioner to voluntarily join the new Boards and Commissions Joint Working Group.
Motion failed 3-2-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Commissioners Davison and Nodzenski.
NOES: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Sawyer.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
C. Great Tide Pool Property Habitat and Coastal Pathways Concerns Proposed Short and Long Term Mitigations
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: NoN/AYes
Historic Resources Inventory: NoN/AYes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Review and discuss possible recommendations to City Council regarding Great Tide Pool Restoration/Enhancement plan.
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Presentation provided by Commissioner Sawyer. She shared a report from Mr. Gho, Public Works Director.
Public comment received from:
Lisa Ciani
Tony Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the commission voted to recommend that City Council adopt the short-term mitigations as suggested by Commissioner Sawyer.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer made a friendly amendment that long term mitigation be investigated. The friendly amendment was accepted.
Action: Chair Lilley made a friendly amendment to recommend that the City receive a monthly PGCC 8-7-2024
report addressing the activities involved with the repair of the restoration improvements of the Great Tide Pool. He also suggested that a plan and funding be secured. The friendly amendment was not accepted.
Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, and amended by Commissioner Sawyer, the commission voted to recommend that City Council adopt the short-term mitigations as suggested by Commissioner Sawyer and investigate long-term mitigation as suggested by the party employed to make such suggestions.
Motion carries 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Story Pole Subcommittee
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: NoN/AYes
Historic Resources Inventory: NoN/AYes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Story Pole Subcommittee.
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Report received from Commissioner Sawyer.
Public comment received from:
Tony Ciani
Lisa Ciani
B. Housing Element and General Plan Updates
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: NoN/AYes
Historic Resources Inventory: NoN/AYes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the Housing Element and General Plan Updates.
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Report received from Mr. Sidor, Senior Contract Planner.
Public comment received from:
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Lisa Ciani
Mr. Sidor, Senior Contract Planner responded to questions.
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. Nomination and Appointment of a Planning Commission Secretary From: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: NoN/Ayes PGCC 8-7-2024
Historic Resources Inventory: NoN/Ayes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Nominate and appoint a Planning Commission Secretary Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Commissioner Sawyer was nominated to be secretary.
Action: Upon motion by Chair Lilley, the commission voted to appoint Commissioner Sawyer as secretary of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
B. Minutes of the August 10, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting - At the request of Commissioner Sawyer, this item was pulled from the consent agenda and moved to the regular agenda (10B).
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the August 10, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Secretary Sawyer recommended the following revisions:
- First paragraph should state, “completed work on a certification letter.” - Correct spelling of Lilley under 3A and 6A.
- Minutes should clearly state “Phase I of Rincon Contract.” - Lisa Ciani also asked to pull item 6A.
- Under 8A, reference, should included staff report by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Pierik provided comments.
- On page 18 correct spelling of Commissioner Davison.
Action: Upon motion by Chair Lilley, the commission voted to appoint Commissioner Sawyer as secretary of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski and Sawyer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
11. PRESENTATIONS
12. NEXT MEETING - November 9, 2023
13. ADJOURNMENT – 8:59 p.m.
PGCC 8-7-2024
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 8-7-2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, November 9, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Senior Planner Sidor conducted roll call with the following members present in Chamber: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Secretary Sawyer and Commissioners Davison, Nodzenski, Fredrickson, and Kubica.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the commission voted to remove item 8A from the agenda and continue item 8A to the December 14th Regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 4-3-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Secretary Sawyer, and Commissioners Fredrickson and Kubica.
NOES: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioners Nodzenski and Davison.
ABSENT: None
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the commission voted to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Secretary Sawyer, and Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski, Davison, and Kubica.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to request staff to renotice Architectural Permit & Coastal Development Permit 22-0264, 111 10th St.
Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Secretary Sawyer, and Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski, Davison, and Kubica.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Secretary Sawyer announced her resignation as Planning Commissioner Secretary.
Chair Lilley introduced interim Community Development Director Lew Bauman.
PGCC 8-7-2024
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Liaison, Luke Coletti, made general announcements.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comments
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: General Written Comments
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
General written comments were received from K. Locke, Jane Haines, Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Planning Commission 2023 Workplan – Commissioner Sawyer pulled item 6A and the item was reagendized as item 9C.
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Recommended Action: Receive the revised Planning Commission 2023 Work plan.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) & Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0264, 111 10th St (APN 006- 218-001) - Item 8A was continued to the December 14th regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
From: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of the proposed Architectural Permit (AP 22-0264), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and historical restoration/rehabilitation, respectively.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Story Pole Subcommittee Report
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines PGCC 8-7-2024
Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Story Pole Subcommittee.
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Action: Received Story Pole Subcommittee Report from Commissioner Sawyer.
Public Comment: No public comment received.
B. Housing Element and General Plan Updates
From: Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: n/a
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the Housing Element and General Plan updates.
Reference: Joe Sidor, Senior Contract Planner
Action: Received Housing Element & General Plan update from Contract Planner Joe Sidor.
Public Comment: No public comment received.
C. Planning Commission 2023 Workplan
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Recommended Action: Receive the revised Planning Commission 2023 Work plan.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: No action taken.
Public Comment: No public comment received.
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PRESENTATIONS
12. NEXT MEETING - December 14, 2023
13. ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm.
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 8-7-2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, December 14, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Associate Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski and Sawyer. Commissioner Davison was absent.
Action: Due to technical difficulties with Zoom, Chair Lilley called a recess at 6:12 pm until the issue was resolved.
Action: Chair Lilley resumed the meeting at 6:30 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, the commission voted to move items 6A, 8D, and 8E to the consent agenda.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Chair Lilley, the commission voted to send item 8C to the Historic Resources Committee and continue to a date uncertain.
Motion failed 2-4-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Commissioner Fredrickson
NOES: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the Commission voted to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
PGCC 8-7-2024
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Commission announcements were made by Commissioner Sawyer, Chair Lilley, and Vice Chair Murphy
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comments
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: General Written Comments
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Received written public comments.
Action: General public comments were received from Mike Gibbs, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, Tony Ciani
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Planning Commission 2023 Workplan
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning
Commission Chair
Recommended Action:Receive the revised Planning Commission 2023 Work plan.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the September 14, 2023 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the September 14, 2023 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Commissioner Sawyer suggested corrections to the September 14th PC meeting minutes.
B. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Amend Chapter 23.64.190(d) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to Hotel Parking (previously Item 8D).
From: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: All
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act PGCC 8-7-2024
Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission (PC) consider 1) confirming a motion adopted on December 8, 2022, recommending changes to the municipal code related to hotel parking; 2) adopting the attached Resolution of Intention (RoI); and 3) requesting that the City manager authorize staff and legal resources necessary to assist the PC in preparing the final proposed legislative amendment for Council consideration.
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the Commission voted to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Inge Larentzen Daumer pulled Item 7C from Consent Agenda and the Commission placed it as Item 8D on the Regular Agenda.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) & Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0264, 111 10th St (APN 006-218-001) continued from the November 9, 2023 Planning Commission regular meeting.
From: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of the proposed Architectural Permit (AP 22-0264), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and historical restoration/rehabilitation, respectively.
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Public comment was received by Tyler Ridgley, Toni Souza, Ann Rudolph, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Tony Ciani.
Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the Commission voted to approve Architectural Permit (AP 22-0264), subject to the findings, amended conditions of approval, and CEQA Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and historical restoration/rehabilitation, respectively.
Amendments to the Conditions of Approval include 1. Development shall follow all provisions and standards outlined in the City of Pacific Grove Information Bulletin No.
PGCC 8-7-2024
29: Tree Guidelines During Development, and 2. A qualified tribal monitor and archaeological monitor shall be present to observe all ground disturbing activities of the project and to investigate and report on any findings.
Action: Commissioner Sawyer requested a friendly amendment to the motion that would add Scenic Resources SCE-9 of the LUP to the permit findings. Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Nodzenski agreed to the friendly amendment.
Motion carried 4-2-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Nodzenski, and Kubika.
NOES: Commissioner Sawyer, Chair Lilley
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
B. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0296 for 1353 Arena, 1335 Arena, and 320 Asilomar Avenues, Pacific Grove (APNs 007-061-003, 007-061-044, and 007-061-045).
From: Garrett McCown, Assistant Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1-B-4/Low Density Residential 1.0 DU/AC Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0296), subject to the findings, condition of approval and Class 5 categorical exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations.
Reference: Garrett McCown, Assistant Planner
Public comment was received by Gonzalo Pique, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, David Huff, and Tony Ciani.
Action: Upon a motion made by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy the Commission voted to approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0296), subject to the findings, conditions of approval and Class 5 categorical exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations.
Action: Chair Lilley requested a friendly amendment to provide correct and matching square footage calculations on the site plans. The friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioner Fredrickson and Vice Chair Murphy.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
C. Use Permit (UP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0221, 270 Central Ave (APN 006-214-002)
From: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing PGCC 8-7-2024
Facilities
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit (UP/CDP 23-0221), subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Public comment was received by Michael Zubrecki, Moe Ammar, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Tony Ciani, Lisa Ciani, and Alex Lorca.
Action: Upon a Motion made by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson the Planning Commission voted to approve Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit (UP/CDP 23-0221), subject to the recommended findings, amended conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) with the following additional conditions of approval: Applicant must provide exterior lighting plans and landscape plans.
Motion carried 5-1-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika.
NOES: Vice Chair Murphy
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
Action: On a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy the Commission voted to continue all remaining agenda items to the January 11, 2024, regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
D. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Amend Chapter 23.64.190(d) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to Hotel Parking. – This item was moved to the Consent Agenda under item 7B.
From: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: All
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission (PC) consider 1) confirming a motion adopted on December 8, 2022, recommending changes to the municipal code related to hotel parking; 2) adopting the attached Resolution of Intention (RoI); and 3) requesting that the City manager authorize staff and legal resources necessary to assist the PC in preparing the final proposed legislative amendment for Council consideration.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
D. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Amend Selected Provisions of Chapter 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) to clarify selected code provisions. -This item was moved to the Consent Agenda under item 7C by the Commission, and then later pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public. The item was placed on the regular agenda under 8D and continued to the January 11, 2024, PC meeting.
From: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission (PC) consider Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Amend Selected Provisions of Chapter 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) to clarify selected code provisions and requesting that the City manager authorize staff and legal resources necessary to assist the PC in preparing the final proposed legislative amendments for Council consideration.
Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
E. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Amend Chapter 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to Story Poles. - This item was continued to the January 11, 2024, PC meeting.
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: All
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission (PC) consider adopting the attached Resolution of Intention (RoI) and requesting that the City manager authorize staff and legal resources necessary to assist the PC in preparing the final proposed legislative amendment for Council consideration.
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PRESENTATIONS
12. NEXT MEETING - January 11, 2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
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.
13. ADJOURNMENT – 10:30 p.m.
PGCC 8-7-2024
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: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance Amending Section 2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Residency Requirement for City Manager CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance; Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance and Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Residency Requirement for City Manager;
2. 3. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
Municipal Code Section 2.06.010 currently reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“The city manager shall be appointed by the affirmative vote of five-sevenths of the council. The city manager, who shall be the administrative head of the city government, shall be chosen by the council without regard to political consideration and with reference solely to his/her qualifications for such office.
(a) Residence Requirement. It shall not be necessary that he or she reside in the city at the time of his/her appointment, but he or she shall become a resident thereof within 60 days thereafter and thereafter during his or her incumbency actually reside in said city.” California Constitution, Article XI, Section 10 (b) reads:
“(b) A city or county, including any chartered city or chartered county, or public district, may not require that its employees be residents of such city, county, or district; except that such employees may be required to reside within a reasonable and specific distance of their place of employment or other designated location.”
Thus, the test to determine whether a residency requirement is valid is one of reasonableness and should be evaluated based on whether it is designed to achieve a legitimate objective.
There are considerations that can be included in determining what is a reasonable distance for a City PGCC 8-7-2024
There are considerations that can be included in determining what is a reasonable distance for a City Manager residence. For example, the City Manager serves as the emergency services director for the City and should be living within a reasonable driving distance to take action during an emergency.
For these reasons, this Ordinance is being proposed to amend Section 2.06.010 (a) to read as (a) Residence Requirement. It shall not be necessary that he or she reside in the city at the time of his/her appointment, but he or she shall become a resident thereof within 60 days thereafterand thereafter during his or her incumbency actually reside in said city of the County of Monterey or such other location as mutually agreed upon in writing by the City Council and the City Manager.
With this amendment to Section 2.06.010 (a) the City Manager would not be required to live in the City of Pacific Grove, but would be required to be a resident of the County of Monterey or such other location as mutually agreed upon in writing by the City Council and City Manager.
OPTIONS
1. Take no action.
2. Provide alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of this Ordinance.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance Amending PGMC 2.06.010(a) re CM Residency Requirement PGCC 8-7-2024
ORDINANCE NO. 24-XXX
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING SECTION 2.06.010 (a) OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR CITY MANAGER
FACTS
1. Municipal Code Section 2.06.010 currently reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The city manager shall be appointed by the affirmative vote of five-sevenths of the council. The city manager, who shall be the administrative head of the city government, shall be chosen by the council without regard to political consideration and with reference solely to his/her qualifications for such office. (a) Residence Requirement. It shall not be necessary that he or she reside in the city at the time of his/her appointment, but he or she shall become a resident thereof within 60 days thereafter and thereafter during his or her incumbency actually reside in said city.
2. This Ordinance will amend Section 2.06.010 (a) read as follows with the deleted text stricken and the added text underlined:
(a) Residence Requirement. It shall not be necessary that he or she reside in the city at the time of his/her appointment, but he or she shall become a resident thereof within 60 days thereafter and thereafter during his or her incumbency actually reside in said city of the County of Monterey or such other location as mutually agreed upon in writing by the City Council and the City Manager.
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 2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
(a) Residence Requirement. It shall not be necessary that he or she reside in the city at the time of his/her appointment, but he or she shall become a resident within 60 days thereafter of the County of Monterey or such other location as mutually agreed upon in writing by the City Council and the City Manager.
SECTION 3. 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 PGCC 8-7-2024
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 accord 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 _____________, 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 8-7-2024
Agenda No. 11 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Lease between Lighthouse Fellowship and the City of Pacific Grove
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request the City Attorney to read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance approving an amendment to the lease between Lighthouse Fellowship and the City of Pacific Grove for the use of City owned property located at 515 Junipero Avenue, commonly known as the Community Center, in the City of Pacific Grove, and authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment #2 and any Letters of extension of the Lease.
3. Direct that publication of the Ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.
4. DISCUSSION
The City owns the property located at 515 Junipero Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950. This property is commonly known as the Community Center. Within the larger property is an office space, referred to as the Community Center Office. From 2009 until 2015 the office space was seldom used. In March 2015, the City signed a Lease agreement with Lighthouse Fellowship for one year, with two, one-year extension options. In 2018, the Council authorized an amendment to the Lease for an additional year, with up to five (5) consecutive options to renew and extend the term of the lease, each for a period of up to one (1) year. The last extension was harnessed in FY2023/2024.
The Lighthouse Fellowship desires to remain a tenant of the Community Center Office and has requested an extension of the lease agreement. The staff recommendation is to authorize Amendment #2 to the Lease Agreement. The amendment will extend the term of the lease for a one-year period (FY2024-2025), with up to four (4) options to extend the lease annually, each for a period of up to one (1) year. All other terms of the lease will remain the same including the rent. The agreed upon rent is $650 per month, for the 600 square feet of office space. The Lighthouse Fellowship provides all the necessary insurance documents and fulfills all conditions noted in the original lease documents.
During this 9-year term, Lighthouse Fellowship has been a positive presence at the facility and a great partner with the City of Pacific Grove.
PGCC 8-7-2024
partner with the City of Pacific Grove.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the amendment.
2. Do not approve the amendment and provide alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Rent will be paid to the City by the Lighthouse Fellowship in the amount of $650 a month.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Lease and Amendment #1
Amendment #2
Ordinance for office Lease
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
AMENDMENT #2 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECREATION
OFFICE LEASE TO THE LIGHTHOUSE FELLOWSHIP
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) and the Lighthouse Fellowship (“Lessee”) entered into a Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) dated May 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City and Lessee desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
A. The Agreement is amended as follows:
• Section 1.3 Term of Lease. The term of this lease shall be from the date of amendment execution to June 30, 2025.
• Section 1.4 Options to Extend. So long as Lessee is not in default under any term or condition of the lease, Lessee shall have up to four (4) consecutive options to renew and extend the term of this lease, each for a period of one (1) year subject to the execution by the Parties of a letter approving the extension (“Letter”). The Mayor is authorized to execute the Letter on behalf of the City. Should the Parties fail to reach agreement on the rental rate to be paid during any such extension prior to the expiration date of this lease or the expiration of any extension, this Lease shall terminate as of the expiration date of this Lease or the expiration of any extension.
Lessee shall provide the City written notice of Lessee’s intent to extend on or before ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Lease. Any option term shall be cancelled upon the failure of the Lessee to provide written notice in accord with this paragraph.
B. All other terms of the Agreement remain the same.
Dated: _____________________ ___________________________ Sr. Pastor David Lucas
President, Lighthouse Fellowship
Dated: _____________________ ____________________________ Bill Peake, Mayor
PGCC 8-7-2024
ORDINANCE NO. 24-____
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO EXECUTE LEASE AMENDMENT #2 FOR THE
COMMUNITY CENTER OFFICE SPACE
WHEREAS, The City owns the property located at 515 Junipero Avenue, commonly known as the Community Center Office; and
WHEREAS, From June of 2009 - February 2015, this office space has essentially gone unused; and
WHEREAS, Lighthouse Fellowship of Pacific Grove has been a tenant in good standing for the past nine years; and
WHEREAS, Our City’s Attorney and Risk Manager have also been involved in the contract language that is included in this report; and
WHEREAS, The agreed rent is $650 per month, for the 600 square feet of office space and Insurances for Liability and Workman’s Compensation are a condition for this agreement; and WHEREAS, The lease amendment is for 1 year with the option to extend for an additional 4 years by mutual letter; and
WHEREAS, The City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute all extensions associated with this lease amendment upon approval of this ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council and hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein.
SECTION 2. The Agreement and Lease between the City of Pacific Grove and the Lighthouse Fellowship of Pacific Grove is hereby approved. The agreement shall remain in force according to terms and conditions thereof.
SECTION 3: The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement the ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, PGCC 8-7-2024
sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on September 1, 2024.
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 8-7-2024
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: Luke Coletti, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60 (This item was continued from Council's July 19, 2024 Regular Meeting.) CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Manager to return within 60 days with a draft ordinance amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to increase short-term rental penalties in accordance with SB 60; and
1. Direct the City Manager to return with a comprehensive list of “infractions that pose a threat to public health or safety,” including those that are a violation of the building and safety code.
2. DISCUSSION
California State Law and SB 60:
California Government Code Section 36901 authorizes the legislative body of a city to impose fines, penalties, and forfeitures for violations of ordinances.
California Government Code Section 36900 limits the maximum fine or penalty amounts for infractions, to $100 for the first violation, $200 for a 2nd violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation, and $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. It also requires a city levying fines pursuant to these provisions to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver in certain cases. Section 1.16.011 of the City’s Municipal Code mirrors this graduated schedule of code infraction fines.
California State Senate Bill 60 (SB 60) increased the maximum fine or penalty amount for violation of an ordinance relating to a residential short-term rental ordinance, that is an infraction and poses a threat to health or safety (e.g., excessive number of occupants), to $1,500 for a first violation, $3,000 for a 2nd violation of the same ordinance within one year, and $5,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation (see Attachment-2).
Pacific Grove Short-Term Rentals:
PGCC 8-7-2024
Section 7.40.040 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes the following occupancy limit for short-term rentals:
(c) Occupancy Limit. The maximum number of overnight occupants (aged 18 or older) allowed within an STR unit shall be two persons per bedroom, plus one additional person per STR unit.
The maximum number of daytime (nonovernight) occupants shall be one and one-half times the maximum number of occupants allowed to stay overnight at the STR unit. The city has sole discretion to determine the final occupancy limit and number of vehicles to be permitted on the STR site. [Ord. 17-024 § 2, 2017].
City code enforcement efforts indicate some lawful short-term rentals are being advertised for occupancies in excess of this limit, which poses a threat to public health and safety.
Pacific Grove voters spoke loud and clear when they adopted Measure M, a citizens’ initiative that prohibits short-term rentals in all residential zoning districts outside of the coastal zone. Measure M includes the following voter-adopted finding:
The City May Adopt Additional Rules to Facilitate Effective Enforcement. This Initiative is enforceable under existing provisions of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. It does not constrain the City’s authority to conduct code enforcement in the manner that best protects the welfare of the entire community.
Operation of unlawful short-term rentals poses a threat to public health and safety.
Conclusion:
The proposed ordinance promotes public health and safety, compliance with exiting law, and helps better protect the City’s residential character, which is consistent with Charter Article 5.5 and General Plan Policy 1.5:
Article 5.5 Residential Character of the City In the exercise of their duties, obligations and authorities, the Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees of the City shall be guided by the determination of the people that Pacific Grove is primarily a city of homes and that business and industry shall be compatible with its residential character.
Policy 1.5 Protect Pacific Grove’s residential character by prohibiting the short-term (less than 30 consecutive calendar days) rental of residential property in residential zoning districts, except to the extent such use is allowed in the Coastal Zone under the Local Coastal Program. The Pacific Grove Municipal Code shall be consistent with this Policy.
Therefore, the Pacific Grove City Council should implement short-term rental penalties consistent with California State Law. Several California cities have already done so.
OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the Ordinance.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Attachments
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Gov Code Section 36900
PGCC 8-7-2024
1 ORDINANCE NO. 24-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
AMENDING PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 7.40 LIMITS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS
TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT OF INFRACTIONS
FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove is a Charter City.
2. The City of Pacific Grove enacted and presently implements a Short-Term Rental Program regulated by Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 7.40, as adopted in 2017 by Ordinance. 17-024, and as amended in 2020 by Ordinance 20-027; and
3. In enacting its comprehensive code to regulate issuance of and conditions attached to shortterm rental licenses the City Council found this regulatory program is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
4. Issues that require regulation of STRs include but are not limited to permitting, tax compliance, noise, parking, and occupancy, as well as host and platform obligations and responsibilities; and
5. This Ordinance further clarifies Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code in accord with SB 60 of 2021 as signed into law by Governor Newsom. SB 60 allows cities to impose a fine of up to $5,000 for public and health and safety violations of a short-term rental ordinance; and
6. Adoption of this ordinance to Amend PGMC Chapter 7.40 does not constitute a “Project” Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 as it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines the foregoing Facts to be true and correct and are therefore incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Section 7.40.130 “Definitions” of PGMC Title 7, Chapter 7.40 shall be amended by the addition of all text shown below in bold italics text.
7.40.130 Definitions.
PGCC 8-7-2024
2 “Advertising” means signs, circulars, cards, telephone books, newspapers, magazines, posters, email, mobile applications, television, radio, or any other representation implying or stating the property is available for short-term rental use.
“Block” means as designated by Monterey County assessor. “Block density” means STRs on a block divided by parcels on that block, expressed as a percentage.
“Block density limit” means block density of 15 percent.
The terms “owner,” “owner representative,” “person,” “remuneration,” “residential property,” “responsible tenant,” “transient,” “transient use,” “transient use of residential property,” and “transient use site” as used in this chapter shall be given the same definition as those terms in PGMC 23.64.350.
“Residential dwelling” is a term that shall mean a private structure designed and available for use and occupancy as a residence by one or more individuals. “Residential dwelling” does not include a commercially operated hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or time-share property as specified.
“Short-term rental (STR)” is a term that shall mean a short-term rental unit that is rented for periods of less than 30 consecutive days for remuneration. This term shall include or any portion of a residential dwelling, that is rented to a person or persons for 30 consecutive days or less.
“Short-term rental use” or “short-term occupancy” means the use, by any person, of residential property for transient lodging where the term of occupancy, possession, or tenancy of the property by the person entitled to such occupancy, possession, or tenancy is less than 30 consecutive calendar days.
“STR license” shall authorize the short-term rental use of an entire dwelling unit. “STR site manager” shall mean the representative of the person or entity that owns an STR. “Sun-setting” means a method in which licenses are discontinued. The sun-setting determination shall be the result of a lottery to ensure blocks are consistent with a block density limit of 15 percent.
“Zone of exclusion” shall mean the range of 55 feet from an existing STR parcel boundary. Any parcel that is located within the 55-foot zone of exclusion shall be ineligible for an STR license.
SECTION 3. Section 7.40.190 “Penalties” of PGMC Title 7, Chapter 7.40 shall be amended by the addition of all text shown below in bold italics text.
7.40.190 Administrative Penalties.
PGCC 8-7-2024
3 Penalties as set forth in Chapter 1.16 PGMC, or the administrative process set forth in Chapter
1.19 PGMC, may be imposed as Administrative Penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter 23.64 PGMC or this chapter, with respect to:
(a) Any STR owner, STR site manager, or person who transacts or carries on any activity relating to or supporting the short-term rental use of residential property in the city without first having procured and complied with an STR license from the city and paying all applicable license fees shall be subject to administrative penalties as set forth in Chapter 1.19 PGMC, including administrative penalties imposed by a hearing officer for violation of any provision of this chapter in an amount not to exceed a maximum of $2,500 per day for each continuing violation, in addition to administrative costs, interest and restitution for compliance reinspections, for any related series of violations, and/or forfeiture of all rents received during the period short-term rental use was allowed without an STR license, whichever amount is greater; (b) Any owner, owner representative, responsible tenant, person acting as agent, real estate broker, real estate sales agent, property manager, reservation service or otherwise who advertises the use of residential property in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to administrative penalties as set forth in Chapter 1.19 PGMC, including administrative penalties imposed by a hearing officer for violation of any provision of this chapter in an amount not to exceed a maximum of $100.00 per day for each continuing violation, in addition to administrative costs, interest, and restitution;
(c) Any STR owner, STR site manager, or person who fails to immediately respond to neighborhood concerns regarding any activity at the short-term rental site and who has failed to timely remedy any violation in response to two or more complaints shall be subject to administrative penalties;
(d) Any STR owner, STR site manager, responsible tenant or person who allows a short-term rental use site to be used or maintained in a manner detrimental to the peace, public health, safety or general welfare of persons or property of the neighborhood or the public, and fails to timely remedy this violation in response to two or more complaints; (e) Any STR owner, STR site manager, responsible tenant or person who allows impermissible or inappropriate behavior at the STR unit or action that exceeds the limits on short-term rental use set by PGMC 7.40.040 following two or more complaints; (f) Limits upon administrative penalties in PGMC 1.19.200 shall not apply to any violation of this chapter.
SECTION 4. Section 7.40.195 “Enforcement of Infractions” of PGMC Title 7, Chapter
7.40 shall be added as shown below in bold italics text.
7.40.195 Enforcement of Infractions.
PGCC 8-7-2024
4 In lieu of, or in addition to any “Administrative Penalties” authorized by PGMC Section
7.40.190, the City may prosecute any violation Short-Term Rental Program regulated by Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 7.40 as an infraction as follows:
(a) Penalty provisions set by this Section shall apply only to infractions that pose a threat to public health and safety, and do not apply to a first-time offense of failure to register or pay a business license fee.
(b) A fine shall not exceed $1,500 for a first violation of Chapter 7.40; (c) A fine shall not exceed $3,000 for a second violation of Chapter 7.40 within twelve consecutive months; and,
(d) A fine shall not exceed $5,000 for each additional violation of Chapter 7.40 within twelve consecutive months from the date of the first violation. (e) A hardship waiver request may be considered to reduce or offset penalty provisions of this section as follows:
(1) The hardship waiver request shall be filed with the city manager on an application form, available from the office of the city manager, within 10 days of the date of the citation. The application shall state the amount of the waiver request, and clearly state all circumstances that justify the waiver.
(2) The requirement to pay the full amount of the fine required by this section shall be stayed unless or until the city manager makes a determination on the hardship waiver request. (3) The cited party shall submit to the city manager a sworn affidavit, together with any supporting documents or materials, demonstrating to the satisfaction of the city manager the person’s actual financial inability to pay to the city the full amount of the fine required by this section.
(4) The city manager shall issue a written determination listing the reasons for his or her determination to issue or not issue the hardship waiver. The written determination of the city manager shall be final.
(5) The written determination of the city manager shall be served upon the person who filed the request for hardship waiver. This determination shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the time limit set by PGMC 1.20.010 shall apply.
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 PGCC 8-7-2024
5 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 accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption on the second reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS ____ day of ____________, 2021, 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 8-7-2024
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 36900
36900. (a) Violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. The violation of a city ordinance may be prosecuted by city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.
(b) Every violation determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
(1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation. (2) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
(3) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
(1) A fine not exceeding one hundred thirty dollars ($130) for a first violation. (2) A fine not exceeding seven hundred dollars ($700) for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
(3) (A) A fine not exceeding one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (B) A fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within two years of the first violation if the property is a commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit unauthorized use of the property.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, including subdivisions (b) and (c), the violation of a short-term rental ordinance that is an infraction is punishable by the following:
(A) A fine not exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for a first violation.
(B) A fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
(C) A fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation. (2) For purposes of this section, “short-term rental” means a residential dwelling, or any portion of a residential dwelling, that is rented to a person or persons for 30 consecutive days or less.
(3) For purposes of this section, “residential dwelling” means a private structure that is designed and available, pursuant to applicable law, for use and occupancy by
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AUTHENTICATED
ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
PGCC 8-7-2024
one or more individuals. “Residential dwelling” does not include a commercially operated hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or a time-share property as defined by subdivision (aa) of Section 11212 of the Business and Professions Code. (4) The fine limits set by this subdivision apply only to infractions that pose a threat to public health or safety. The fines described in this subdivision shall not apply to a first time offense of failure to register or pay a business license fee. Nothing in this subdivision limits the authority of a city, or city and county, to establish lower fines for specific violations by ordinance.
(e) A city levying a fine pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivisions (b) and (c), and paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), shall establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the responsible party that the responsible party has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 307, Sec. 2. (SB 60) Effective September 24, 2021.) PGCC 8-7-2024
Agenda No. 12 B
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: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Correcting Clerical Error in Resolution No. 24-028 Submitting Ballot Measure to Voters to Amend City Charter to Change the Number of Elected City Council Members from Six to Four
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to adopt Resolution Correcting Clerical Error in Resolution No. 24-028 Submitting Ballot Measure to Voters to Amend City Charter to Change the Number of Elected City Council Members from Six to Four
DISCUSSION
On July 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove adopted Resolution No. 2024-028 Submitting Ballot Measure to Voters to Amend City Charter to Change the Number of Elected City Council Members from Six to Four to be voted upon at the election to be held on November 5, 2024.
Resolution No. 2024-028 in the title of the Resolution states that in 2026 that two Councilmembers shall be elected to a four year term and one Councilmember shall be elected to a two year term. Further, Section 3 of Resolution 2024-028 provides that the ballot question to be submitted to the electorate will be as follows:
Shall the Pacific Grove City Charter be amended to reduce the size of the City Council from six Councilmembers and a Mayor to four Councilmembers and a Mayor such that: in 2026 two
Councilmembers shall be elected to four-year terms, and one to a single two-year term, and every two years thereafter two Councilmembers shall be elected to four-year terms; with associated amendments for votes needed for a quorum, majority vote and other select actions?
YES
NO
Resolution No. 2024-028 in Exhibit A listed the Effective Dates for the amendments to the City Charter being proposed. However, in reviewing Resolution No. 2024-028, there is noted to be a clerical error which needs to be corrected on the Effective Dates for the changes proposed by the ballot measure for PGCC 8-7-2024
which needs to be corrected on the Effective Dates for the changes proposed by the ballot measure for Article 11 (The Mayor) and Article 12 (Council) and those changes are shown here in redline to reflect the correct Effective Dates for the amendments to Article 11 and Article 12:
Each Charter Article amendment, provided herein, shall become effective and implemented in conjunction with the following election dates:
1. Amendment of Charter Article 6 - November 7, 2028.
2. Amendment of Charter Article 11 - November 7, 2028. November 3, 2026.
3. Amendment of Charter Article 12 - November 3, 2026. November 7, 2028.
4. Amendment of Charter Article 13 - November 7, 2028.
5. Amendment of Charter Article 15 - November 7, 2028.
6. Amendment of Charter Article 19 - November 7, 2028.
7. Amendment of Charter Article 24 - November 7, 2028.
8. Amendment of Charter Article 26 - November 7, 2028.
9. Amendment of Charter Article 40 - November 7, 2028.
The recommended action is for the City Council to adopt a Resolution Correcting Clerical Error in Resolution No. 24-028 Submitting Ballot Measure to Voters to Amend City Charter to Change the Number of Elected City Council Members from Six to Four as contained in the Attachment to this Agenda Report.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for this correction.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
1 Resolution Correcting Clerical error in Resolution No. 24-028 Charter Amendment PGCC 8-7-2024
1 RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CORRECTING CLERICAL ERROR IN RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 028 AND SUBMITTING A BALLOT MEASURE TO VOTERS TO AMEND
THE PACIFIC GROVE CITY CHARTER TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF
ELECTED CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM SIX TO FOUR
COUNCILMEMBERS BY DIRECTING (1) IN 2026 TWO COUNCIL
MEMBERS SHALL BE ELECTED TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS, AND ONE
COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL BE ELECTED TO A SINGLE TWO-YEAR
TERM, AND (2) EVERY TWO YEARS THEREAFTER BEGINNING IN
2028 TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL BE ELECTED TO FOUR-YEAR
TERMS; CONSISTENT CHARTER CHANGES SHALL CLARIFY A
QUORUM, MAJORITY VOTE AND OTHER SELECT ACTIONS AND
REQUESTING THE MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT
TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND CONSOLIDATE IT WITH THE
STATEWIDE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove adopted Resolution No. 2024-028 entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 24-028
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC
GROVE SUBMITTING A BALLOT MEASURE TO VOTERS TO AMEND
THE PACIFIC GROVE CITY CHARTER TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF
ELECTED CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM SIX TO FOUR
COUNCILMEMBERS BY DIRECTING (1) IN 2026 TWO COUNCIL
MEMBERS SHALL BE ELECTED TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS, AND ONE
COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL BE ELECTED TO A SINGLE TWO-YEAR
TERM, AND (2) EVERY TWO YEARS THEREAFTER BEGINNING IN
2028 TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL BE ELECTED TO FOUR-YEAR
TERMS; CONSISTENT CHARTER CHANGES SHALL CLARIFY A
QUORUM, MAJORITY VOTE AND OTHER SELECT ACTIONS AND
REQUESTING THE MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT
TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND CONSOLIDATE IT WITH THE
STATEWIDE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 24-028 includes in Exhibit A as Part 4 EFFECTIVE DATES:
Each Charter Article amendment, provided herein, shall become effective and implemented in conjunction with the following election dates:
1. Amendment of Charter Article 6 - November 7, 2028.
2. Amendment of Charter Article 11 - November 3, 2026.
3. Amendment of Charter Article 12 - November 7, 2028.
4. Amendment of Charter Article 13 - November 7, 2028.
PGCC 8-7-2024
2 5. Amendment of Charter Article 15 - November 7, 2028.
6. Amendment of Charter Article 19 - November 7, 2028.
7. Amendment of Charter Article 24 - November 7, 2028.
8. Amendment of Charter Article 26 - November 7, 2028.
9. Amendment of Charter Article 40 - November 7, 2028.
WHEREAS, there is clerical error in the listing of the Effective Dates in Part 4 of Exhibit A in that Article 11 should be effective on November 7, 2028 and Article 12 should be effective November 3, 2026 as shown here in track changes and, as corrected, in Part 4 of Exhibit A attached to this Resolution:
Each Charter Article amendment, provided herein, shall become effective and implemented in conjunction with the following election dates:
1. Amendment of Charter Article 6 - November 7, 2028.
2. Amendment of Charter Article 11 - November 7, 2028. November 3, 2026.
3. Amendment of Charter Article 12 - November 3, 2026. November 7, 2028.
4. Amendment of Charter Article 13 - November 7, 2028.
5. Amendment of Charter Article 15 - November 7, 2028.
6. Amendment of Charter Article 19 - November 7, 2028.
7. Amendment of Charter Article 24 - November 7, 2028.
8. Amendment of Charter Article 26 - November 7, 2028.
9. Amendment of Charter Article 40 - November 7, 2028.
WHEREAS, except for the correction of the clerical error on the Effective Dates as identified hereinabove, the balance of this Resolution is identical to Resolution No. 2024-028.
WHEREAS, the Pacific Grove City Charter, since 1927, has required the staggered election of six Council members, in addition to the Mayor, whereby each Council Member is elected to serve a four-year term. This election system was largely based on the "Model City Charter" published in 1926 by the League of California Municipalities, with one notable exception being the "Model City Charter" recommended a five-member council.
WHEREAS, California city councils vary greatly in size from four to fifteen members. A clear majority of cities (almost 90%) throughout California call for election of a five-member council. This is the council membership for all cities in Monterey County, excepting Pacific Grove and Salinas. Less than 7% of California cities rely on a seven-member council.
WHEREAS, the proposed Charter Amendment would reduce the size of the City Council from seven to five members, that is, four Council members and a Mayor.
WHEREAS, reducing the number of elected council members from six to four will reduce redundancy, conserve City resources and facilitate decision-making. Some commentators have stated council larger than five increases the opportunity for members to divide into factions.
WHEREAS, any City Charter amendment must be approved by the voters of that City.
PGCC 8-7-2024
3 WHEREAS, a change to the City election system requires a vote of the electorate and may only be effected prospectively insofar as elected officials, by law, hold office for the entire term of their elected service.
WHEREAS, the change to the City election system proposes to stage this election sequence whereby one council member shall serve a single two-year term to provide a bridge between the six-member group of elected councilmembers to the four-member group of elected councilmembers.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove may request the Board of Supervisors of the county to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city or district relating to the conduct of an election. The city or district shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city or district.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, Monterey County Elections shall supply the elections official with a list of its precincts, or consolidated precincts, as applicable.
WHEREAS, the City Clerk and County Registrar of Voters are authorized to print forms, publish notices, and provide information as may be necessary or convenient to assure the orderly conduct of the election, and they shall do all other things necessary to facilitate the holding of the election in a manner consistent with law.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot.
Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation. The resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000, et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). The calling and noticing of an election for the submission of a ballot measure to voters is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines 15378.
PGCC 8-7-2024
4 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit the proposed Charter Amendment to the voters of the City at a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, , and to be consolidated with the general municipal election and the statewide election to be held on that date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Resolution 24-022. On June 5, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 24-022 Calling An Election, Requesting The County Elections Department Conduct The Election, Requesting Consolidation Of The Election With The November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election, And Authorizing The City Manager To Sign The Service Agreement For Provision Of Election Services.
Section 3. Election. Pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution, Article 8 of the City Charter, and Elections Code Sections 9255(b)(l), the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby orders the following proposed Charter Amendment be submitted to the voters at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election and requests the Monterey County Elections Department to conduct the election and consolidate it with the statewide election to be held on November 5, 2024 and submit to the electorate the following question:
Measure "_" Charter Amendment - Reducing Number of Councilmembers.
Shall the Pacific Grove City Charter be amended to reduce the size of the City Council from six Councilmembers and a Mayor to four Councilmembers and a Mayor such that: in 2026 two Councilmembers shall be elected to four-year terms, and one to a single two-year term, and every two years thereafter two Councilmembers shall be elected to four-year terms; with associated amendments for votes needed for a quorum, majority vote and other select actions?
YES
NO
Section 4. Proposed Charter Amendment. The text of the proposed Charter Amendment to be submitted to the voters is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. The full text of the proposed Charter Amendment shall be printed in the Sample Ballot and Voters Pamphlet and shall be made available to the public and to any voter at the County Elections Department and the Pacific Grove City Clerk.
Section 5. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is directed to publish a synopsis of the measure at least one time not later than one week before the election.
Section 6. Approval. The vote requirement for this measure to pass shall be a majority of those casting ballots on the measure (50% plus 1).
PGCC 8-7-2024
5 Section 7. Filing with County. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Elections Department.
Section 8. Analysis and Argument. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure that shall not exceed 500 words no later than 12:00 p.m. on August 15, 2024. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282, the City Council authorizes the Mayor to author and submit the primary argument and pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285(a), authorizes the Mayor to submit a rebuttal argument in favor of the ballot measure. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9287, if more than one argument is submitted against the measure, the City Clerk shall select the argument to be included with the ballot materials. An argument for or against the measure shall not exceed 300 words in length. The last day to submit arguments for or against the proposed measure shall be August 15, 2024. Submittals are to be delivered to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. Rebuttal arguments (250 words) shall be permitted pursuant to applicable law. The last day to submit rebuttal arguments to the City Clerk shall be August 22, 2024. Submittals are to be delivered to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m.
Section 9. Implementation. The City Clerk and City Manager are authorized to take all actions as necessary to effectuate the purposes of this resolution and the election. The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to enter into a service agreement for the provision of election services with Monterey County Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk and City Attorney are authorized to make any typographical, clerical, and non-substantive corrections to this resolution as may be deemed necessary by the Monterey Elections Department.
Section 10. Declaration. The City Council shall meet to declare the results of the election called for by this Resolution at their regular meeting following certification of election results.
Section 11. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
Section 12. Environmental Compliance. The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly, or indirectly.
Section 13. Election Called and Consolidated. The City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby orders an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 5, 2024 within the same territory.
Section 14. All Necessary Services. The City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby orders that pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002 said governing body hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey to permit the Monterey County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting an election and agrees to pay for said services in full.
PGCC 8-7-2024
6 Section 15. Printing of Measure. The City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby requests that the Monterey County Elections Department print the attached full measure text Exhibit A exactly as filed or indicated on the filed document in the voter information guide for the November 5, 2024 election.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on this 7th day of August, 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 8-7-2024
7 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
EXHIBIT A
Text of Proposed Charter Amendment to Be Submitted to the Voters: Proposal to Amend the Pacific Grove City Charter to Reduce the Size of the City Council from Six (6) Councilmembers and a Mayor to Four (4) Councilmembers and a Mayor and Redefine the Votes Needed for a Quorum, A Majority Vote and Other Select Actions.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT TO PACIFIC GROVE CITY CHARTER
Amended text shown in underscored bold italics text, and deleted text shown in strikeout text.
Highlighted text shown solely for ease of reference.
PART 1: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 1. That Article 6 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 6 Officers and Employees
The officers of the City of Pacific Grove shall consist of six four Councilmembers and a Mayor, a City Manager, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer, a City Attorney, other officers as provided by ordinance, and members of Commissions, Boards and Committees as provided by Charter and by ordinance; provided, the Council may by ordinance provide for such subordinate officers, assistants, deputies, clerks and employees as it deems necessary, and that the Council may at any time, when in its judgment the interest of the City so demands, consolidate by ordinance the powers and duties of two or more City officers, and place the same in charge of one such officer.
The Mayor and the members of the Council shall be elected from the City at large. All other officers, assistants, deputies, clerks, and employees shall be appointed as provided in this Charter, or as the Council may provide by ordinance in case no provision for their appointment is herein made, and they shall hold their respective offices or positions at the pleasure of the appointing power, except as otherwise herein provided.
Section 2. That Article 11 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 11 The Mayor
A Mayor shall be elected at each general municipal election and shall hold office for the term of two years from and after the Tuesday next succeeding the day of such election and until a successor is elected and qualified. The Mayor may receive compensation as provided by ordinance, but in no case shall the compensation exceed that amount which is permitted by State Law for General Law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove. The Mayor shall be ineligible to hold any office or employment with the City except as a member of any board, commission or committee thereof of which the Mayor is constituted such member by General Law. In the name and on behalf of the City the Mayor shall sign all contracts, deeds, bonds and other legal instruments in which the city is a party. The Mayor or the Mayor's designate shall represent the City at all ceremonial functions of a social or patriotic character when it is desirable or PGCC 8-7-2024
8 appropriate to have the City represented officially thereat. The Council shall choose one of its members to serve as Mayor pro tempore during the absence of the Mayor. The Mayor shall preside over all Council meetings and shall be entitled to one vote.
In the event a vacancy occurs in the office of the Mayor, the remaining Council Members shall appoint, by four three affirmative votes, one of their number to serve as Mayor for the remaining term of the vacated office of Mayor. If the Council does not fill the Mayoral vacancy within thirty (30) days its appointment power shall lapse and the Mayor Pro Tempore shall assume the office of Mayor. In either event, a vacancy shall then exist as to that Council seat, which shall be filled in accord with the provisions of Article 12 of this Charter.
Section 3. That Article 12 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 12 Council
Three Two Councilmembers shall be elected at each general municipal election and shall hold office for the term of four years each from and after the Tuesday next succeeding the day of such election, and until their successors are elected and qualified.
A vacancy in an elective office shall be filled by appointment by the Council, such appointee to hold office until the next general municipal election and until a successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election and until a successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election next succeeding such appointment. Should the Council fail to fill any such vacancy within thirty days after the same occurs, then it shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor; provided, however, that if the offices of a majority, or more, of the Council shall become vacant, then the City Clerk shall call a special election at once to fill the vacancies for the unexpired terms, and the same shall be conducted substantially in the manner provided for general municipal elections.
If any Councilmember of the City shall be absent for more than two consecutive regular meetings without good cause as determined by the Council, or shall cease to be a resident or elector of the City, or shall fail to qualify, or shall resign or be convicted of a felony, or be adjudged mentally incompetent, the Councilmember's office shall thereupon become vacant.
The Councilmembers may receive compensation as provided by ordinance, but in no case shall the compensation exceed that amount which is permitted by the State Law for General Law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove.
No Councilmember shall be eligible to hold any other office or employment with the City except as a member of any board, commission, or committee thereof, of which the Councilmember is constituted such member by the General Law of the State.
The term of office for a Councilmember who files as a candidate for the Office of Mayor shall automatically expire on the Tuesday next succeeding the general municipal election held following that filing. The filing period for candidates to fill such Councilmember's term shall be extended an additional five days.
PGCC 8-7-2024
9 Section 4. That Article 13 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 13 Meetings of the Council
All meetings of the Council shall be duly noticed and shall be open to the public and shall otherwise comply with applicable state law. All meetings of the Council shall be held in the Council Chambers, except that the Council may hold meetings at another location either to (1) accommodate those who wish to attend, or to (2) accommodate an emergency situation, or to (3) accommodate the needs of a particular meeting as determined in the sole discretion of the Council. There shall be two regular meetings of the Council in each month at a day and hour by ordinance determined, and any regular meeting may be adjourned to a date and hour certain and such adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes; provided however, the Council may cancel one of those meetings, as circumstances may require, by five (5) four (4) affirmative votes. The Council shall adopt rules for the conduct of its proceeding and shall provide by ordinance the manner in which its special meetings may be called.
Section 5. That Article 15 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 15 Ordinances
(a) The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the Council shall read as follows: "The Council of the City of Pacific Grove does ordain as follows:" The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the vote of the electors of the City through the exercise of the initiative or referendum shall be: "The people of the City of Pacific Grove do ordain as follows:" (b) The affirmative vote of four three members of the Council shall be necessary to adopt any ordinances, resolutions or claims against the City, which vote shall be taken by ayes and noes and entered upon the record, and upon the request of any member of the Council the ayes and noes shall be taken and recorded upon any vote.
(c) No ordinance shall be passed by the Council on the day of its introduction nor within five days thereafter, nor at any time other than at a regular meeting, nor until its publication at least once in the official newspaper at least three days before its adoption. Provided, that the publication of ordinances as required herein may be satisfied by publication of a summary of a proposed ordinance, if at the time the ordinance is introduced the Council directs a summary to be published. Any summary so published shall be approved by the City Attorney. A copy of the full text of proposed ordinances for which summaries are published shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk and available to the public on and after the first business day following introduction.
(d) Notwithstanding the five day waiting period required in (c), immediately hereinabove, any ordinance declared by the Council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, safety or public welfare, and containing the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and if passed by a vote of no fewer than five four members of the Council shall become effective immediately.
PGCC 8-7-2024
10 (e) A proposed ordinance may be amended or modified between the time of its introduction and the time of its final passage, provided its general scope and original purpose are retained. (f) No ordinance or portion thereof shall be repealed, revised or amended except by ordinance, and all ordinances shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. (g) Except as provided by General Law, or by this Charter, no action providing for the approval or amendment of the annual fiscal year budget, or for the acquisition, sale, lease, encumbrancing or disposition of real property of the City, or any interest therein, or for the levying of any tax or assessment, or for the granting of any franchise, or for the establishment or changing of zoning regulations, or for the imposing of any penalty, shall be taken except by ordinance.
(h) All ordinances subject to the right of referendum shall become effective 30 days following final passage. All other ordinances shall be effective immediately upon final passage.
The provisions of this subarticle shall not affect the ability of the Council to adopt emergency measures pursuant to subarticle (d) of this Article.
Section 6. That Article 19 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 19 City Manager
There shall be a City Manager appointed by the affirmative vote of five sevenths four fifths of the Council who shall be the administrative head of the City government. The City Manager shall be chosen by the Council without regard to political consideration and with reference solely to qualifications for such office. The procedure for removal of the City Manager shall be prescribed by ordinance.
It shall not be necessary that the City Manager reside in the City at the time of appointment, but the City Manager shall become a resident thereof within sixty days thereafter and thereafter during incumbency shall actually reside in the City.
The powers and duties of the City Manager shall be:
a. To see that all ordinances are enforced.
b. To appoint all heads of departments, subordinate officials and employees, and remove the same, and have general supervision and control over the same. c. To exercise general supervision over all privately owned public utilities operating within the City so far as the same are subject to municipal control. d. To see that the provisions of all franchises, leases, contracts, permits and privileges granted by the City are fully observed and to report to the Council any violations thereof. e. To act as purchasing agent for the City. The City Manager shall know the exact condition of the treasury at all times, and shall approve all demands before the same have been allowed by the Council if the City Manager is satisfied that the money is lawfully due.
PGCC 8-7-2024
11 f. To attend all meetings of the Council unless excused therefrom by three two members thereof or by the Mayor.
g. To examine, or cause to be examined, without notice, the conduct, or the official account and records, of any officer or employee of the City.
h. To keep the Council advised as to the needs of the City. i. To have supervision over all City property, including public buildings, parks and playgrounds.
j. To appoint such advisory boards as the City Manager may deem desirable to advise and assist the City Manager provided the members of such boards shall receive no compensation. k. To cause a quarterly statement of all funds in the treasury to be submitted to the Council.
Such statements shall be submitted not later than the first meeting in November, February, May and August.
l. To assume general control of the City government and all of its branches in case of riot, insurrection or extraordinary emergency, and to be responsible for the suppression of disorders and the restoration of normal conditions.
Section 7. That Article 24 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 24 City Attorney
There shall be a City Attorney appointed by the City Council. The City Attorney shall be an attorney-at-law, admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of this State, and one who has been in actual practice in the State, for at least three years next preceding appointment. All other things being equal, an attorney who has had special training for this office or experience in municipal corporation law shall be appointed to this office, if practicable. The City Attorney shall be legal advisor of the Council and shall be available to all other City officials on City business.
The City Attorney shall prosecute all violations of City ordinances, and shall draft all ordinances, resolutions, contracts, or other legal documents or proceedings required by the Council or other officials, except as may be otherwise provided, and shall perform such legal services from time to time as the Council may require, and shall attend all meetings of the Council unless excused therefrom by three two members thereof or by the Mayor. When from any cause therefrom the City Attorney is unable to perform the duties of office, the City Attorney shall with the consent of the Council appoint some other qualified attorney to act temporarily as City Attorney.
Whenever, in the judgment of the Council, the interests of the City require it, assistant counsel may be employed. The City Attorney shall deliver all books, records, papers, documents, and property of every description, under his or her control, owned by the City, to his or her successor in office, and shall possess such other powers, and perform such additional duties, not in conflict with this Charter, as may be prescribed by ordinance.
PGCC 8-7-2024
12 Section 8. That Article 26 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 26 Appointive Commissions and Boards
There shall be the Commission and Boards enumerated in this Article which shall have the powers and duties as provided herein. The appointment of persons to serve on these Commissions and Boards shall be made by the Mayor subject to the confirmation by affirmative vote of four three members of the Council.
Before making such appointments the Mayor shall consult with the Council and shall consider fully any and all nominations suggested by other members of the Council.
Members of Commissions and Boards shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The Council, by an affirmative vote of four three of its members, may remove any member of any Commission or Board at any time during the Commission or Board member's term of office.
The term of office for members of Commissions and Boards shall be four years, but in no event shall any person serve more than three successive full terms on a single Commission or Board.
For the purposes of this Article, service upon appointment to a vacated mid-term seat shall be deemed service for a full term. A person who has served for such three term period on a Commission or Board shall be eligible for reappointment to that Commission or Board after the expiration of two years.
Any person appointed to serve on such Commissions or Boards shall be a registered elector of the City and shall not hold any paid office or employment in the City government or be a member of any other Board as herein enumerated, or be a member of the City Council, except as an ex officio member without vote.
a. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. There shall be a Planning Commission consisting of seven members, and shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Recommend to the Council the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a General Master Plan, or any part thereof, for the physical development of the City. (2) Exercise such functions with respect to land subdivisions, planning and zoning as may be prescribed by ordinance or resolution.
(3) Perform such other duties relating to planning and zoning as the Council may require by ordinance or resolution, or as may be prescribed by the General Laws of the State. b. LIBRARY BOARD. There shall be a Library Board consisting of five members and shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and City Manager in all matters pertaining to the operation of a public library.
(2) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of such laws, rules, and regulations as it may deem necessary for the administration and protection of the City Library.
PGCC 8-7-2024
13 (3) Perform such other duties relating to the library services as the Council may require by ordinance or resolution.
c. MUSEUM BOARD. There shall be a Museum Board consisting of five members and shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and City Manager in all matters pertaining to the operation of a public museum.
(2) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of such laws, rules, and regulations as it may deem necessary for the administration and protection of the City Museum. (3) Perform such other duties relating to the museum service as the Council may require by ordinance or resolution.
d. RECREATION BOARD. There shall be a Recreation Board consisting of five members and shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and City Manager in all matters pertaining to the operation of a City recreation program.
(2) Recommend to the City Council the adoption of such laws, rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the administration and operation of a City recreation program. (3) Promote and stimulate public interest in a recreation program and solicit to the fullest extent possible the cooperation of school authorities and other public and private agencies interested therein.
(4) Perform such other duties relating to the recreation program as the Council may require by ordinance or resolution.
Section 9. That Article 40 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
Article 40 Contracts on Public Works; Materials and Supplies (a) In the erection, improvement and repair of all public buildings and works, in all street and sewer work, and in furnishing supplies or materials for same when the expenditure required for the same shall exceed the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), the same shall be done by contract and shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder, after notice by publication in the official newspaper, and security for the due execution and performance of any such contract may be required of the successful bidder. The Council may provide by ordinance for the detailed procedure for carrying out this Article.
Provided, that the Council may reject any and all bids presented and may re-advertise in their discretion, and provided further, that after rejecting bids the Council may declare and determine by an affirmative vote of five four of its members that in its opinion the work in question may be more economically or satisfactorily performed by day labor, by either city employees or others, PGCC 8-7-2024
14 and after adoption of a resolution to this effect, it may proceed to have the same done in the manner stated without further observance of the foregoing provisions of this Article.
Provided, further, that such contracts likewise may be let without advertising for bids if such work shall be deemed by the Council to be of urgent necessity for the preservation of life, health or property, and shall be authorized by resolution passed by an affirmative vote of five four Council members and containing a declaration of facts constituting such urgency. (b) The Council by ordinance shall adopt policies and procedures, including appropriate bidding regulations, governing purchases of or contracts for supplies, materials and equipment.
Purchases of supplies, materials and equipment shall be made only in accordance with the adopted policies and procedures.
PART 2: BALLOT DESCRIPTION
As provided in Government Code section 34458.5, the following ballot description is in this proposed Charter Amendment measure:
CHARTER AMENDMENT
The proposed Charter Amendment measure would amend Pacific Grove City Charter Articles 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 24, 26, and 40. The amendment would change the number of elected City Council members from six to four by directing (1) in 2026 two Council members shall be elected to four-year terms, and one Council member shall be elected to a single two-year term, and (2) every two years thereafter beginning in 2028 two Council members shall be elected to four- year terms; Consistent Charter changes shall clarify a quorum, majority vote and other select actions, which shall become effective when the number of Councilmembers is reduced to four (4) after the November 2028 election is certified.
Charter Article 6 would be revised to provide the reduction of the number of Councilmembers from six (6) to four (4).
Charter Article 11 would be revised to provide that in the event a vacancy occurs in the office of the Mayor, the remaining Council Members shall appoint, by three (3) affirmative votes, one of their number to serve as Mayor for the remaining term of the vacated office of Mayor, instead of four (4) votes.
Charter Article 12 would be revised to provide that two (2) Councilmembers shall be elected at each general municipal election rather than three (3).
Charter Article 13 would be revised to provide that the City Council may cancel one of its monthly meetings, by four (4) affirmative votes instead of five (5).
Charter Article 15 would be revised to provide that the affirmative vote of three (3) members of the Council shall be necessary to adopt any ordinances, resolutions or claims against the City instead of four (4).
PGCC 8-7-2024
15 Charter Article 19 would be revised to provide that the appointment of the City Manager shall require the affirmative vote of four fifths of the Council instead of five sevenths and to require the City Manager to attend all meetings of the Council unless excused by two (2) members instead of three (3), or by the Mayor.
Charter Article 24 would be revised to provide that the City Attorney must attend all meetings of the Council unless excused by two (2) members instead of three (3), or by the Mayor.
Charter Article 26 would be revised to provide that the appointment of persons serving on City Commissions and Boards shall be made by the Mayor subject to the confirmation by affirmative vote of three (3) members of the Council instead of four (4). Also the Council, by an affirmative vote of three (3) of its members, may remove any member of any commission, instead of four (4).
Charter Article 40 would be revised to provide that the Council after rejecting all bids may declare and determine by an affirmative vote of four (4) of its members instead of five (5) that in its opinion the work in question may be more economically or satisfactorily performed by day labor, by either city employees or others, and after adoption of a resolution, it may proceed to have the proposed work done without further observance of the foregoing provisions of Article
40. Article 40 would also be revised to allow the Council to approve a contract without advertising for bids with a finding of urgent necessity for the preservation of life, health or property, with an affirmative vote of four (4) Council members instead of five (5).
PART 3: IMPLEMENTATION
In the event this Charter Amendment measure is approved:
A. Exclusively for the election to be held in November 2026, two councilmembers shall be elected and hold office for a term of four years and one additional councilmember shall be elected and hold office for a term of two years, resulting in a four (4) member City Council and Mayor (5 member) local legislative body after the November 2028 election is certified
B. To further effectuate the purposes of this Charter Amendment measure and the direction of the voters, the City Council shall amend the following sections of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code - Sections 2.04.070 (c)(5), 3.02.030 and 3.04.030, and such other sections as needed, to modify the number of required council votes for actions referenced in those provisions as may be consistent with this measure.
C. This Charter Amendment measure shall be submitted to the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code sections 34459 through 34461, inclusive.
PART 4: EFFECTIVE DATES
Section 3(a) of Article XI of the California Constitution provides:
PGCC 8-7-2024
16 For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.
This Charter Amendment measure shall become effective in the manner allowed by law.
Each Charter Article amendment, provided herein, shall become effective and implemented in conjunction with the following election dates:
1. Amendment of Charter Article 6 - November 7, 2028.
2. Amendment of Charter Article 11 - November 3, 2028.
3. Amendment of Charter Article 12 - November 7, 2026.
4. Amendment of Charter Article 13 - November 7, 2028.
5. Amendment of Charter Article 15 - November 7, 2028.
6. Amendment of Charter Article 19 - November 7, 2028.
7. Amendment of Charter Article 24 - November 7, 2028.
8. Amendment of Charter Article 26 - November 7, 2028.
9. Amendment of Charter Article 40 - November 7, 2028.
PART 5: SEVERABILITY
It is the intent of the people that the provisions of the Charter Amendment measure are severable and that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this charter amendment is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Charter Amendment measure. The people of the City of Pacific Grove hereby declare that they would have passed this Charter Amendment measure and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Agenda No. 13 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Policy 000-5 to Add Section and Regarding Recommendations by Boards, Committees, and Commissions
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to approve Resolution Amending Policy 000-5 to Add Section 7 Regarding Recommendations of Boards, Committees and Commissions
1. Motion to approve Protocol for recommendations to the City Council by Boards, Committees and Commissions
2. 3. Other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, the Boards, Committees and Commissions (“Committees”) have become very proactive and initiated recommendations to the City Council to improve City services for both residents and businesses. These recommendations are excellent community feedback to Council. Council should give them ample consideration when approving City goals, policies, and budget.
A Resolution to amend Policy 000-5 is proposed to provide a protocol for Committee recommendations (Attachment 1).
The amendment to Policy 000-5 will add Section 7 which reads (as noted in Attachment 2) as follows:
7. Recommendations to City Council from Boards, Committees and Commissions. The protocol for the submission of recommendations to the City by Boards, Committees and Commissions shall be as set forth by action of the City Council except for recommendations by the Boards, Committees and Commissions requested by City staff.
PROTOCOL FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
To consider recommendations by Committees to the City Council, a protocol (“Protocol”) is being proposed in this Agenda Report as follows:
1. Committee approves recommendation via an agenda item and vote.
2. Chairperson documents recommendation via a Committee Recommendation in the form PGCC 8-7-2024
attached to this Agenda Report (Attachment 3).
Chairperson and Council Liaison discuss next steps which may include discussion with City Manager and/or City Attorney.
3. This Protocol could result in any number of outcomes such as placement on Council agenda, referral back to Committee, or identification of obstacles to implementation.
Example recommendations that can be heard by Council are: new/revised programs, studies, policies, public notices, public meetings/workshops, expenditures, and engagement with a public agency.
Implementation may require City Manager concurrence and legal review by the City Attorney.
Recommendations must be within the scope of a Committee’s roles and responsibility as described in the Boards, Committees, and Commissions Handbook, Appendix E – Powers and Duties.
OPTIONS
Status quo
Pull Committee Minutes from Council consent agenda
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Reso Amending Policy 000-5 to Add Section 7 Regarding Recommendations of BCCs Redline of Policy 000-5 with added Section 7 in redline.
Boards, Committees, and Commissions Recommendation Form PGCC 8-7-2024
1 RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX
RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY 000-5 COMMITTEE
CLASSIFCATION; BOARD, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
AND PROCEDURES
FINDINGS
1. Council Policy 000-5 includes the procedures for the Boards, Committees and Commissions.
2. The amendment to Council Policy 000-5 here proposed is intended to clarify the protocol for recommends to the City Council from Boards, Committees and Commissions.
3. The Amendment will provide an orderly and efficient process for the City Council to consider the recommendations of the Boards, Committees and Commissions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
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. Policy 000-5 is hereby amended to add Section 7 to read as follows:
7. Recommendations to City Council from Boards, Committees and Commissions. The protocol for the submission of recommendations to the City by Boards, Committees and Commissions shall be as set forth by action of the City Council except for recommendations by the Boards, Committees and Commissions requested by City staff.
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 7th day of August 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PGCC 8-7-2024
2 APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 8-7-2024
1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT POLICY NO. EFF. DATE PAGE
Committee Classification;
Board, Commission, and
Committee Appointments and
Procedures
000-5 February 2, 2011 1 of 3
1. Purpose. This policy establishes standards for: 1) the classification of Council committees; 2) the appointment of board, commission, and committee members; and 3) board, commission, and committee procedures.
2. Classification. The following classification shall be in place to handle the committee and other referral needs of the Council not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of charter or municipal code boards and commissions:
a. Ad hoc committees. This class of committee shall consist either of citizens only or a mixed group of Council members and citizens. Such committees shall have limited assignments related to temporal issues and shall be expected to complete the assignments within a relatively short time. The Council shall provide a written statement of mission to an ad hoc committee, shall ask that the work of the committee be completed by a certain date, shall advise as to record keeping and form of recommendation and shall provide guidance on legal and practical aspects of proceeding with committee work, including suggested formats for agenda and minutes. Ad hoc committees shall be required to submit summary progress reports to the Council on a regular basis, or at least semiannually. Unless otherwise directed by the Council, ad hoc committees shall designate their chair and vice chair. Ad hoc committees shall be free to request that the Council expand committee missions, i.e. scope of work, but shall make no such changes without specific approval of the Council. b. Standing committees. This class of committee shall consist either of citizens only or a mixed group of Council members and citizens. Assignment(s) shall not necessarily be permanent, but a standing committee may exist to address issues arising more or less continually in an area of interest to the Council. With the exception of the time specific items, the provisions set out in the ad hoc committee section, above, shall apply as well to standing committees. c. Council subcommittees. This class treats the situation where one, two, or three Council members are given direction to perform work/research and to return to the Council with some preassigned product.
NOTE: Staff shall not be named as committee members. Staff’s role is advisory and supportive; naming staff as committee members confuses staff’s relationship and responsibility to assigned committees.
3. Appointment of Board, Commission, and Committee Members. a. Members of charter and municipal code boards and commissions are selected by the Mayor, subject to approval by the Council. Selection shall occur annually at the second regular meeting in January and on an as-needed basis thereafter. The appointment process includes a minimum twoweek notification period, including posting, posting on the City’s web site, and media notices specifying the board(s) or commission(s) having a vacancy, the number of vacancies on each, the PGCC 8-7-2024
2 term of service, the application process, and the application closing date. The City Clerk shall make available a folder containing all applications for Council examination, and the Mayor's selections for Council approval will be placed on the next available regular meeting agenda following the closing date. If a vacancy arises during a term, and there are one or more active applications for that board or commission on file, appointment can be made from those applications, without re-noticing. This can help avoid a significant disruption in the operations of the board or commission due to extended vacancy. In any event, applications are valid for a maximum of only 12 months. b. When considering appointments to a City Boards or Commissions, Pacific Grove residency and voter registration shall be required.
1. Residency in Pacific Grove is established when all of the following conditions are met: the applicant is registered to vote; the address listed on the applicant’s drivers license; the address where the applicant receives his or her mail; and where the applicant physically resides, combined with the intent to remain there.
2. Should a Pacific Grove resident serving on a City Board or Commission no longer qualify as a Pacific Grove resident under paragraph (b) 1, above, that office shall be vacated.
3. As an exception to the residency requirement set by this paragraph (b), a non-resident may be appointed to the Economic Development Commission, Architectural Review Board, and the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Task Force.
c. With respect to appointment of citizen members of ad hoc committees and standing committees, appointment opportunities shall be announced at a Council meeting and in the media, as appropriate, with a stated closing date that is a least one week before the meeting at which the appointments will be made. If there are not sufficient or appropriate applications, the time limit may be extended and announcements may be repeated. Recommendations shall be invited from everyone with interest or expertise, i.e., Council, staff, board/commission/committee members, and citizens. Recommendations shall be made to the Mayor or the City Clerk. Any interested Council members may review the applications in the Clerk's file. The Mayor shall submit final selections for Council approval on the next available regular meeting agenda following the closing date. d. Membership of boards, commissions, and committees shall not be changed without Council approval.
e. In making appointments to the many bodies referenced in this policy, the Council shall endeavor to distribute the appointments as broadly as possible throughout the city population. Unless a special talent or expertise otherwise dictates, the Council shall not favor appointment of more than one member of a household to a single body. Further, in considering appointments, the Council shall be attentive to the City’s status as an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) organization. f. (l) With the exception of charter boards and commissions (which service limitations are set out in the city charter) a citizen member of a body covered by this policy shall not be reappointed to a new term if such reappointment would result in continuous service on the body for more than eight consecutive years. Service for less than a full term shall not be counted in applying the eight-year limit.
(2) Lengths of terms, commencement, and expiration dates of said terms for members of PGCC 8-7-2024
3 boards, commissions, and committees established by the Municipal Code shall be as provided by the Municipal Code. Expiration dates are staggered, so as to provide continuity. (3) Lengths of terms of standing committee members shall be as provided at the time the Council establishes a standing committee. Said terms shall in any event be set to expire on January 31 of the appropriate year.
(4) Ad hoc committee member terms shall be for the time required for the work of the committee to be completed, as specified by the Council. g. Appointments to outside agencies shall be made by the Mayor subject to approval by the Council.
h. All members shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The Council, by an affirmative vote of four of its members, may remove any committee member at any time during the member’s term of office (Charter Article 26). Possible grounds for removal are: excessive absences, verbally or physically abusive behavior, and violations of ethics or conflicts of interest.
4. Board, Commission, and Committee Procedures. Charter, municipal code, ad hoc, and standing boards, commissions, and committees shall adhere to standard procedures for notice, conduct of meetings, reporting to the Council, and other matters, as provided in the Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook, which are attached to and made a part of this policy.
5. Council Review of Board Actions. The City Council shall not “approve” the minutes of any board, commission, or committee; rather the minutes shall be “received.” If there is an item in the minutes that requires actions of the Council, it shall be separately and specifically listed on the Council agenda for action. As set forth in the municipal code (PGMC §23.73.080) the Council, acting at its next regular meeting following a final decision of any board or commission, may “call up” an item acted upon by that board or commission. The vote of three members of the Council shall be required to call an item for review. The action so called shall be reviewed by the Council, de novo, within thirty days of the decision to compel review. Notice of the review shall be provided in the same manner as required for the initial action. The review, by majority vote, may affirm or modify the original decision.
6. Council Access to Email Groups. Upon request, any member of the City Council shall be allowed to join any City Committee Email Group.
7. Recommendations to City Council from Boards, Committees and Commissions. The protocol for the submission of recommendations to the City by Boards, Committees and Commissions shall be as set forth by action of the City Council except for recommendations by the Boards, Committees and Commissions requested by City staff.
Attachments:
Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook
Adopted: June 17, 1992 Resolution No. 6280
PGCC 8-7-2024
4 Amended: September 1, 1993 Resolution No. 6361
Amended: March 29, 1996 Resolution No. 6-017
Amended: May 15, 1996 Resolution No. 6-026
Amended: January 8, 1997 Resolution No. 7-001
Amended: February 19, 1997 Resolution No. 7-006
Amended: September 1, 2010 Resolution No. 10-069
Amended: December 1, 2010 Resolution No. 10-103
Amended: February 2, 2011 Resolution No. 11-007
Amended: March 6, 2019 Resolution No. 19-003
Amended: March 22, 2023 Resolution No. 23-006
PGCC 8-7-2024
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: (Council Liaison)
FROM: (Chairperson)
COMMITTEE:
DATE:
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ RECOMENDATION (include date of committee vote)
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION(attach continued discussion)
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ FISCAL IMPACT (if known)
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ PGCC 8-7-2024
Agenda No. 13 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
MEETING DATE: August 07, 2024
SUBJECT: League of California Cities (LoCC) Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate(s)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss, designate, and adopt by resolution a voting delegate and up to two alternates to represent the City on policy matters at the League of California Cities (LoCC) Annual Conference on October 16-18 in Long Beach, California.
1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
Council adopted by resolution City Council Policy 000-29 setting forth an annual process for selecting a voting delegate and up to two alternates to attend the LoCC Annual Conference, participate in the business meeting, and vote on behalf of the City.
The League of California Cities will hold its 2024 Annual Conference from October 16-18, in Long Beach, California. During the conference business meeting, the authorized delegate from the City may represent the City’s interests to vote on and approve League policy. The delegate shall attend the conference to represent and vote on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove. If the selected voting delegate cannot attend, the designated alternate may exercise voting authority.
The League requires each city seeking to vote on matters to authorize by resolution its Mayor or other elected officials to formally represent the city, participate in the business meeting, and vote on behalf of the city.
Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy. Policy issues are determined annually by the League Board in late summer at which time staff will return to Council for direction to the voting delegate/alternate(s).
OPTIONS
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
PGCC 8-7-2024
Funding for City Council conference attendance and travel is allocated within the adopted Fiscal Year 24-25 budget.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Cal Cities Voting Delegate Packet
Proposed Resolution
PGCC 8-7-2024
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.
Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.
Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
PGCC 8-7-2024
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly PGCC 8-7-2024
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
PGCC 8-7-2024
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).
PGCC 8-7-2024
1 RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC
GROVE APPOINTING A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
FINDINGS
1. The City of Pacific Grove is a full voting member of the League of California Cities (League);
2. The League takes positions on matters affecting cities throughout the state, including but not restricted to sponsoring legislation, taking joint positions on pending legislation, the placing voters’ initiatives on the ballot;
3. The Board of Directors of the League of California Cities places matters for the cities’ collective consideration on the agenda for the business meeting at the League’s annual conference;
4. The League requires each city seeking to vote on those matters to authorize by resolution its Mayor or other elected officials to formally represent the city, participate in the business meeting, and vote on behalf of the city;
5. This resolution is in accordance with, and does not conflict with, existing City laws and regulations and applicable Government Code provisions, and
6. This action does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under the California Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 as it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The City 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 City of Pacific Grove hereby appoints _______________ as voting delegate with ______________ and _______________ as alternate voting delegates to the League of California Cities annual conference in Long Beach, California.
3. The City of Pacific Grove City Clerk, or designee, is authorized to inform the League of the above appointments.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately following passage and adoption.
PGCC 8-7-2024
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 7 th day of August, 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 8-7-2024