Pacific Grove City Council
October 2, 2024

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 2, 2024, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.

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

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

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

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Comments from the public will not receive Council action. Comments must deal with matters on the Closed Session agenda and will be limited to three minutes.

1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) PGCC 10-2-24

A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: Sloat Avenue between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue Agency Negotiator(s): Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Negotiating Party(ies): Foursome Development Company and CCS Pacific Grove Manager, LLC and Comstock
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment

ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 10-2-24

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 2, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.

Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.

Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.

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

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

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

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

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

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Amelio
PGCC 10-2-24

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Museum Foundation PG 9
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive proclamation.

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

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
B. Other

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council’s consideration of such items at the time such items are called. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of the September 4, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting PG 11 Reference: Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst (Confidential) Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

PGCC 10-2-24

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the September 18, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting PG 18 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

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

6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) PG 25
Reference: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director Recommended Action: Rescind Resolution 23-010; and approve a resolution authorizing the investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).

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

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Ordinance Amending the Operating and Capital Budget for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Reference: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director PG 28 Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance amending the operating and capital budget for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25.

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

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 32
Reference: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
Recommended Action:

1. Receive the report.

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

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 10-2-24

B. Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Committee PG 34 Reference: Climate Action and Planning Committee Chair Lori McDonnell and Vice-Chair Cathy Wooten
Recommended Action:

1. Receive report on Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Committee status.

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

CEQA: Proposed Ordinance not subject to CEQA based on Guideline Sections: 15060(c)(3) and 15378; 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3); and 150308

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Contract Amendment for Professional Services PG 36
Reference: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director Recommended Action:

Approve Amendment #1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Catacutan Consulting, LLC., increasing the previously approved contract by $50,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000.

1. 2. Direct the City Manager to take alternative action.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. David Avenue Sidewalk Project (CIP23-21) – Award of Contract PG 39 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action:

Award an agreement with JMS Cement Contractors, Inc. In an amount not to exceed $510,020 plus a 10% contingency

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

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities C. Boards, Commissions and Committee Appointments PG 43 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointments of Roger O'Sullivan to Recreation Board ending January 31, 2029 and Greg Marshall to the Economic Development Commission ending January 31, 2027.

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business PGCC 10-2-24

A. Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes: May 15, 2024, June 11, 2024, and July 9, 2024 PG 46
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: January 2024 through July 2024 PG 57 Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

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

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter.

A. Introduction of Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60 PG 97 Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action:

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

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60; and

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

4. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pacific Grove Declaring Its Intent To Initiate Procedures For A Transition From At-Large To District-Based Council Member Elections PG 111
PGCC 10-2-24

Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:

Motion to adopt Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pacific Grove Declaring Its Intent To Initiate Procedures For A Transition From At-Large To District-Based Council Member Elections in the form of Attachment 1

1. Motion to direct the City Manager to develop a tentative timeline for conducting public hearings, formulating proposed district maps scenarios and election sequencing, and present a draft ordinance to the City Council for action.

2. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement with LULAC to extend the date to complete the transition to district-based elections within the safe harbor provisions of Elections Code Section 10010 to March 31, 2025 provided that LULAC agrees to such an extension.

3. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a First Amendment to City of Pacific Grove Professional Services Agreement with National Demographic Corporation for further Demographer Services in an amount not to exceed $49,000.

4. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. "The Butterflies" Art Donation Subcommittee Report PG 265 Reference: Debby Beck and Luke Coletti, Councilmembers
Recommended Action:

1. Receive the report.

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

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

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.

PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 2 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: Museum Foundation
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive proclamation.

Attachments
Proclamation
PGCC 10-2-24

Mayor’s Proclamation
Recognizing the Museum Foundation of Pacific Grove
WHEREAS, the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural history exemplifies the values of education, community engagement, and preservation of heritage; and WHEREAS, founded in 1883 as the Chautauqua Museum around a collection of natural specimens being one of the first natural history museums in the nation; and WHEREAS, the Museum Foundation of Pacific Grove entered into a partnership with the City of Pacific Grove July 27, 2009, to operate the Museum with the mission "To Inspire Discovery, Wonder, and Stewardship of our Natural World"; and
WHEREAS, as the first cultural institution accredited in Monterey County, reflecting the museum's unwavering dedication to standards of excellence in all its programs and services; and WHEREAS, the museum has a rich collection of nearly 40,000 objects, including 6,000 that are available for research through an online database and many on exhibition; and WHEREAS, the museum actively engages the community in hands-on data collection and conservation efforts, has community science programs, such as Night Owl, LIMPETS, Watershed Guardians, Western Monarch Count, Science Saturdays, California Naturalist; and WHEREAS, the museum educates thousands of visitors and students, “K through Gray”, from across the Monterey Peninsula and beyond; and
WHEREAS, none of which would be possible without the dedication of the Museum Foundation Board, Staff and Volunteers.

NOW THEREFORE, I, Bill Peake, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Pacific Grove do hereby recognize the Museum Foundation of Pacific Grove, it’s Board, Staff and Volunteers for their outstanding efforts and contributions to our community. ________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove
PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 5 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst (Confidential) MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the September 4, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 9-4-24
PGCC 10-2-24

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, September 4, 2024, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed

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

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

SPECIAL MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Public comment received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Jane Haines.

1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: Sloat Avenue between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue Agency Negotiator(s): Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Negotiating Party(ies): (Comstock)
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of Litigation Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) Number of Cases: One (Arising out of letter received from LULAC on August 23, 2024, attached.)
Action: Received report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, September 4, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the regular meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Mayor Pro Tem left the meeting at 6:57 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Coletti led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 7-0, to approve the regular agenda.

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Recognizing The Heritage Society of Pacific Grove Point Pinos Lighthouse Restoration
Action: Received proclamation.

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

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: Sloat Avenue between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue Agency Negotiator(s): Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Negotiating Party(ies): (Comstock)
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of Litigation Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) Number of Cases: One (Arising out of letter received from LULAC on August 23, 2024 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Receive report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
City Attorney Brian Pierik reported no action was taken as to both items.

DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

3 B. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment received from Susan Goldbeck, Daniel Miller, Moe Ammar, Jeff Frank, Jean Anton, Robert Huitt, Mike Gibbs, Vince Tuminello, Carmelita Garcia, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

A. Written General Public Comment

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

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the August 21, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting Action: Approved minutes.

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

6. RESOLUTIONS

7. ORDINANCES

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Community Goals and Work Plan Review for FY 24-25
Action: Received the Goals and Work Plan Update.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Water Allocation Update for 520 Lighthouse Avenue Mixed-Use Project Action: Received report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Monterey One Water Board of Directors 2024 Mid-Year Highlights Action: Received report.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Promissory Note and Agreement for 157 Grand Avenue
Action: Approved a new Promissory Note and Agreement with IC PG Property Owner, LLC for water entitlement for the hotel project at 157 Grand Avenue (APN 006-173- DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

4 002), accelerating the water entitlement payment by 12-months and revising the project ownership.

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA) No public comment received.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Peake, Council voted 7-0 to

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

2. Waive further reading of the ordinance;

3. Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to modify the salary range for Police Officer and Police Sergeant and approve the amendment; and

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

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study – August 2024
No public comment received.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Smith absent, to

1. Adopt the FY 24-25 Recommended Fees (Attachment III) and Resolution No. 24- 038 to create and adopt the City’s FY 24-25 Master Fee Schedule.

2. Direct the City Manager to propose an increase in fees for City Council consideration using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a cap of 5%, in May of each of the next three years.

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

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Direction to the City Manager regarding Outdoor Dining Guidelines for Bulb-Outs Public comment received from Sally Moore and Peggy Gibbs.

Action: Council reviewed, commented, and provided direction to the City Manager regarding:

1. The draft goals and objectives of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines under development;

2. The current precedent of the Pacific Grove outdoor dining streetscapes; and

3. Example features, structures and amenities of model and poor outdoor dining facilities noted in field visits of various communities.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

5 B. Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project
No public comment received.

Action: Councilmember Beck recused herself from this item.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted 5-0-1-1, Councilmember Beck recused, Mayor Pro Tem Smith absent, to receive bids and authorize the City Manager to prepare a budget amendment to allocate funds for the Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project for an amount of $339,304.66 which includes the base bid, a 25% construction contingency and 15% engineer’s oversite; returning to Council at the next meeting with an ordinance for a budget amendment CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
C. Discussion Regarding California Voting Rights Act Issues, Impact of Ballot Measure for Measure Z (Proposes Reduction from Six Councilmembers to Four Councilmembers) and Letter Received from LULAC on August 23, 2024 and Motion to Provide Direction to City Manager.

Public comment received from Don Murphy, Kevin Handley, Analy, Mike Gibbs, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Dixie Layne, and Carmelita Garcia.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Smith absent, to

1. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council with a Resolution of Intent to Transition from At-Large Elections to By-District Elections and retain a demographer to assist in that transition process or such other action related to this item as the Council determines appropriate.

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

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Outdoor Art Donation Proposal of Stained Glass "The Butterflies" from Nader Agha Public comment received from Susan Goldbeck, Don Murphy, Carmelita Garcia, Mike Gibbs, Lisa Ciani, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Beck and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Smith absent, to create a subcommittee comprising of Councilmembers Beck and Coletti, review the Museum and other options for placement of the stained-glass window, one-with little to no staff resources, and return to Council the first meeting in October. .

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION
DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

6 ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular and special meetings at 10:13 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Staphany Arriola
Management Analyst
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: __________________________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 5 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the September 18, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 9-18-24
PGCC 10-2-24

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, September 18, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Councilmember Beck left the meeting at 10:18 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember McDonnell led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Mayor Peake recommended Regular Agenda item 11B be heard prior to Regular Agenda item 11A.

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

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Hispanic Heritage Month
Action: Received the proclamation for Hispanic Heritage Month.

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

3. COUNCILAND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. No closed session meeting occurred.

B. Council and staff made general announcements. It was recommended the meeting be dedicated to former Councilmember Ron Schenk upon his recent passing.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Celia Barberena, Mike Gibbs, and Anthony Ciani.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 9C was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

2 Agenda.

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

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

6. RESOLUTIONS

7. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA) Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 24-014 amending the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA).

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

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Check Register for August 2024
Action: Received the Check Register.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Core Revenue Report for August 2024
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Fourth Quarter FY 23/24 Purchase Order Report
Action: Received the FY 23/24 Fourth Quarter Purchase Order Report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Fourth Quarter FY 23/24 Capital Project Report & Update Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Monterey-Salinas Transit Minutes of July 8 and August 19, 2024.

Action: Received Minutes.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. City Support of League of California Cities’ Resolution at Annual Conference Action: Supported the resolution offered for consideration at the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference and directed the City of Pacific Grove (City) Delegate to vote in favor of the resolution during the Conference General Assembly.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

3 B. City of Pacific Grove's Conflict of Interest Code
Action: Reviewed and filed the City's Conflict of Interest Code acknowledging no amendment is required.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Cultural Resource and Tribal Monitoring Protocol This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action:

1. Authorize an amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to increase the contract amount by $39,943 plus a 10% contingency and extend the term through June 30, 2025.

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

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion's Meeting Minutes: August 12, 2024 Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Historic Resources Committee Meeting Minutes: March 27, 2024; April 24, 2024; July 24, 2024
Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Recreation Board Meeting Minutes: September 28, 2023, November 30, 2023, January 25, 2024, and February 22, 2024
Action: Received minutes.

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

9.C. Cultural Resource and Tribal Monitoring Protocol This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Public comment received from Lisa Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Anthony Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, the Council voted 7-0 to authorize an amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to increase the contract amount by $39,943 plus a 10% contingency and extend the term through June 30, 2025.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

4 REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Discussion of American Tin Cannery (ATC) Project; Proposed Resolution Declaring City’s Intent to Vacate Excess Right-Of-Way Located on Portion of Sloat Avenue; Proposed Resolution Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 for Exempt Surplus Land; Proposed Uncodified Ordinance Conditionally Ordering Vacation During the Approval of the Agenda, it was recommended this item be heard prior to 11A.

Public comment received from Jane Haines, Bill Kampe, Mike Bekker, Moe Ammar, Jennifer Haydu, Dr. Paige Viren, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Rebecca Lee, Lisa Ciani, Christi Metzer, Anthony Ciani, and John Merhaut.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 24-039 Declaring City’s Intent to Vacate Excess RightOf-Way Located on Portion of Sloat Avenue as described in Attachment 1 to this Agenda Report.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 24-040 pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 for Exempt Surplus Land as described in Attachment 2 to this Agenda Report.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to 7-0 request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance, waive further reading of the ordinance, introduce and hold first reading of the uncodified ordinance conditionally ordering vacation, and direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
Action: Council took a break from 8:13 – 8:23 p.m.

A. Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Amendments During the Approval of the Agenda, it was recommended this item be heard after to 11B.

Public comment received from Colleen Goldsmith and Andrew Kubica.

DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

5 Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 7-0 to

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

2. Waive further reading of the ordinance;

3. Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending the operating and capital budget for the Fiscal Year 2024-25; and

4. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Pine Avenue Street Improvements, Fountain and 15th
Public comment received from Andrew Kubica, Christie Thomas, Dixie Layne, Tina Rau, and Carmelita Garcia.

Action: A break was provided from 10:10 to 10:12 to staff on this item.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Peake, Council voted to receive the presentation and authorize staff to discuss options with the Traffic Safety Commission and Pacific Grove Unified School District Staff to gain feedback on improvements and subsequently, bring back refined options to the City Council.

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

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

NOES: Councilmember Beck.

ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Beck and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, the Council voted 6-1, Councilmember Amelio dissenting, to continue past 10:00 p.m. and hear remaining items.

B. Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project
No public comment received.

Action: Councilmember Beck recused herself from this item.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted 6-0-1, Councilmember Beck recused, to approve an agreement with Silcon Constructors Inc. for the Lighthouse Avenue Widening Project for an amount not to exceed $242,360.53 plus a 25% contingency
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities C. Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU)
No public comment received.

DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

6 Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted 6-0-1, Councilmember Beck absent, to authorize the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU) and associated updates to the Zoning Code, Land Use Element (LUE), and Health and Safety Element (HSE) and Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (“Project”), adding an amount not to exceed $157,699.00 to complete the following:

1. Cover out-of-scope work associated with alternative housing sites and methods to replace three (3) Unclassified sites for the 6th Cycle HEU ($134,209.00); and

2. Provide optional task funding to cover additional work only to be utilized in the event the City receives substantive comments from HCD ($23,490.00). (Attachment A)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
A. Pure Water Monterey Presentation
No public comment received.

Action: Council received presentation.

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

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the special and regular meetings at 10:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: __________________________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 6 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Rescind Resolution 23-010; and approve a resolution authorizing the investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).

DISCUSSION
The City has invested a portion of available funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). LAIF was established by the State of California in 1976 as a means to prudently manage investments. Use of this investment option is authorized by Council Policy 400-5. In April 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 23-010 which provides City positions with the authority to withdraw or deposits funds in LAIF. An updated resolution is provided to reflect the positions that are currently filled in the department.

The attached Resolution rescinds Resolution 15-051; and authorizes incumbents of the positions of Administrative Services Director and Finance Manager (Program Manager), to deposit or withdraw LAIF funds on the City's behalf. Staff will bring back a revised resolution at a future Council meeting after the Deputy Director of Finance position (Program Manager Senior) has been filled.

OPTIONS
Approve the resolution.

Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
Attachments
Proposed Reso
PGCC 10-2-24

RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AUTHORIZING

INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)

FINDINGS

1. The Local Agency Investment Fund is established in the State Treasury under Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and

2. The City Council hereby finds that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with Government Code Section 16429.1 et. seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein is in the best interests of the City.

3. Resolution 23-010 designated the Administrative Services Director, Finance and Risk Manager, and the Management Analyst (Finance) with the authority to deposit or withdraw funds in LAIF.

4. A new resolution authorizing the position titles currently filled in the department is needed to provide City staff with the authority to deposit or withdraw funds in LAIF.

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. The Council authorizes Resolution 23-010 to be rescinded.

3. The City of Pacific Grove officers holding the titles specified hereinbelow or their successors in office are hereby authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and may execute and deliver any and all documents necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purpose of this resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby:

Fred Marsh Lori Frati
Administrative Services Manager Finance Manager

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

PGCC 10-2-24

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 2nd day of October, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 7 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Operating and Capital Budget for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance amending the operating and capital budget for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25.

DISCUSSION
No substantive changes occurred between the first and second readings of this ordinance. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on 9/26/24.

Staff made a PowerPoint presentation at the September 18, 2024 Council meeting that presented a few different scenarios to be considered by Council regarding the possible uses of projected surplus reserves in excess of the General Fund reserve policy (35% of operating expenditures for the fund), based upon the five-year forecast included in the adopted budget for FY 24-25. These scenarios included the following:

A. Transfer the surplus funds to increase the funding levels of one of the following funds:
a. Insurance Internal Service
b. General Fund CIP
c. Vehicle Replacement
d. Special Revenue Equipment Replacement Funds
B. Funding of one or more of these proposed new positions (funding for ½ year in FY 24-25):

Proposed New Position
Est. Annual
Cost
Est. Impact
FY 24-25
City Forester $230,000 $115,000
City Engineer 306,000 153,000
PGCC 10-2-24

In addition to the above, it is proposed to do the following: (no additional funding required):

1. Add a floating FTE to Police without requiring additional funding (i.e. funded by existing personnel cost savings)

2. Change the allocation of one planner from 75% Planning/25% City Manager to 100% Planning C. Funding of additional one-time capital projects and programs for Fiscal Year 2024-25, including:

Proposed Project/Program Estimated Cost
Sidewalk Extension at Lighthouse and Fountain $340,000
Sidewalk Projects (Sinex and Sunset) 175,000
Housing Element Modifications 108,000
Butterfly Sanctuary Fencing 75,000
George Washington Park Drainage 50,000
Pickleball/Tennis Court Resurfacing and Sound Fencing 47,000 POA Contract Modifications 36,000
Contract Amendment for Demographer 33,000
ADA Access at George Washington Park 25,000
Total of Above $889,000
Attached is a current funded and unfunded cip list for Fiscal Year 2024-25. The recreation commission recommended the pickleball/tennis court and George Washington Park projects, along with developing a park master plan. Note that both the pickleball/tennis court and George Washington Park projects are currently included in the unfunded capital improvement project (cip) list. At this point in time, we recommend that the park master plan remain on the unfunded project list.

D. Make no changes to current projected General Fund reserve levels

OPTIONS
Approve ordinance.

Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

General Fund Reserves are projected to be reduced by $1,157,000 in FY 24-25 with the passage of this ordinance.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Ordinance
PGCC 10-2-24

ORDINANCE NO. xx-xxx

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2024-25 FACTS

1. The City Council approved the FY 2024-25 Budget on June 19, 2024.

2. It is customary to amend the budget to adjust revenues and expenditures to reflect updated information since the adoption of the FY 2024-25 Budget.

3. The City Manager is recommending amendments to the FY 2024-25 Budget to reflect the City Council goals for the fiscal year budget

4. The Council has determined it is appropriate to amend the approved budget for FY 2024-25

5. Pursuant to Charter Article 156, an amendment of the budget must be approved by ordinance.

6. A summary of the ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, was published on 9/26/24.

7. In the enactment of the ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 154, Section 15000, et seq.

8. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

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

SECTION 1: The foregoing facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as set forth within the body of this ordinance.

SECTION 2: The expenditure budget for the General Fund is amended for the items listed below.

Which by reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

A. Additional Capital Projects
Proposed Project/Program Estimated Cost
Sidewalk Extension at Lighthouse and Fountain $340,000
Sidewalk Projects (Sinex and Sunset) 175,000
Housing Element Modifications 108,000
Butterfly Sanctuary Fencing 75,000
George Washington Park Drainage 50,000
Pickleball/Tennis Court Resurfacing and Sound Fencing 47,000 POA Contract Modifications 36,000
Contract Amendment for Demographer 33,000
ADA Access at George Washington Park 25,000
Total of Above $889,000
PGCC 10-2-24

B. Additional Positions
Proposed New Position
Estimated
Annual
Cost
Estimated
Impact
FY 24-25
City Forester $230,000 $115,000
City Engineer 306,000 153,000
C. Additional Personnel Changes

1. Add a floating FTE to Police without requiring additional funding (i.e. funded by existing personnel cost savings)

2. Change the allocation of one planner from 75% Planning / 25% City Manager to 100% Planning
SECTION 3: In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 2nd day of October, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SANDRA KANDRELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 8 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Housing Element Monthly Status Update
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report.

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

DISCUSSION
On December 20, 2023, City Council approved the first amendment to the contract with Rincon Consultants, initiating the preparation of the Housing Element Update (HEU), along with related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Subsequently, City Staff and Rincon Consultants continued/commenced work and provided the eighth monthly progress report update to Council on September 4, 2024. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:

August 30, 2024: City staff provided Rincon with a consolidated review of the Climate Change and Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) to inform associated amendments to the Health and Safety Element (HSE).

September 5, 2024: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps related to the Housing Element Update (HEU), the associated contract amendment, and forthcoming Zoning Code, Land Use, and Health and Safety Element amendments, as well as the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

September 6, 2024: City staff provided Rincon with a consolidated response to a data needs request and 2nd amendment draft materials for review.

September 10, 2024: Rincon provided City staff with a follow-up to the data needs request.

September 11, 2024: City Housing and Planning staff met with Rincon and Subconsultant WRT to review current status of pending updates to the housing test fits summary and Zoning Code text.

September 12, 2024: City staff provided Rincon with a final response to the 9/11 data needs request follow-up.

September 16, 2024: Rincon submitted August invoice materials to City staff.

September 18, 2024: City staff reviewed Rincon’s August invoice materials. City staff and Rincon attended 9/18 City Council meeting to request authorization of the 2nd amendment to the Housing Element Professional Services Agreement (“HEU PSA”) with Rincon Consultants, Inc.

September 19, 2024: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps related to the PGCC 10-2-24

September 19, 2024: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps related to the Housing Element Update (HEU), the associated contract amendment, and forthcoming Zoning Code, Land Use, and Health and Safety Element amendments, as well as the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). City staff updated the Housing Element webpage and prepared the 2nd amendment to the Rincon HEU PSA for signatures.

September 20, 2024: City staff prepared the next monthly status update for 10/2 City Council and provided Rincon with key talking points regarding the City Housing and Planning grants.

September 23, 2024: City staff updated the Housing Element webpage and provided Rincon with consolidated comments on the updated draft EIR Project Description and Buildout Assumptions Memo.

Housing Element Team includes City Planning, Housing, and City Manager staff, City legal representation, and Rincon/subconsultant staff.

Staff will provide a monthly status update to the Council throughout the process, leading to an adopted and certified Housing Element. For more information, please visit the Housing Element Webpage:
www.cityofpacificgrove.org/HousingElement

OPTIONS
N/A – This is information only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 8 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Climate Action and Planning Committee Chair Lori McDonnell and Vice-Chair Cathy Wooten
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Committee CEQA: Proposed Ordinance not subject to CEQA based on Guideline Sections:
15060(c)(3) and 15378; 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3); and 150308

RECOMMENDATION

DISCUSSION
The Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Committee was established in February 2023 and set to meet quarterly to work on development of a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Early meetings brought in speakers with experience in Action and Adaptation planning to help the committee better understand some of the challenges and recommendations from local communities and experts. This helped the committee develop a better understanding of the type of plan that could help get the best outcomes for Pacific Grove. The recent meetings were focused on developing the RFP to select a consultant to develop and produce a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and reviewing the submissions.

Council Action February 1, 2023
Upon motion by Mayor Peake and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to:

Request that the City Council prioritize and initiate Climate Action and Adaptation Planning in 2023 tied to Council goals.

1. 2. Seek the services of a consultant to develop and produce a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Establish a Council Brown Act subcommittee on Climate Action and Adaptation Planning comprising of Councilmember Coletti, McDonnell and Poduri to end when a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is complete.

3. Climate Action and Adaptation Subcommittee meetings have been held:

1. May 18, 2023

2. August 17, 2023

3. February 2, 2024

4. April 18, 2024

5. May 16, 2024

6. August 15, 2024

7. September 19, 2024
PGCC 10-2-24

RFP for proposal to provide climate action and adaptation planning services:

Issued - June 27, 2024
Submittals deadline - August 1, 2024
Status
Three responses were received to the RFP. The CAAP Committee held a special meeting September 19, 2024 to review and discuss the proposals received in response to the RFP. The three proposals offered different approaches to the development of the CAAP, and two of the proposals were determined to best fit the needs of Pacific Grove. It was agreed that the next step would be to interview the top two submissions to identify which team can best help us achieve our Climate Action and Adaptation goals.

A subcommittee of members McDonnell, Myers, and Poduri agreed to coordinate with Environmental Program Manager George Fuerst to interview the teams and make a recommendation to the full Committee at a the next regularly scheduled CAAP meeting on November 21, 2024, and then to the City Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

The proposals can be viewed as attachments to the September 19, 2024 CAAP Agenda here.

Reference information related to climate action and adaptation planning, including existing Planning Documents and Regional Climate Action/Adaptation and related Plans can be found here.

OPTIONS
Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 9 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment for Professional Services
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment #1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Catacutan Consulting, LLC., increasing the previously approved contract by $50,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000.

1. 2. Direct the City Manager to take alternative action.

DISCUSSION
In June 2024, the City executed an agreement with Catacutan Consulting, LLC (Catacutan) for contract executive level finance, budget and accounting services to backfill the vacant administrative services director position within the Administrative Services Department (ASD). An amendment to this agreement was approved in July 2024. In addition to the administrative services director vacancy, there are two other key vacant positions in the department: deputy director of finance and finance management analyst.

Due to ongoing financial reporting and auditing within the department and limited staff resources, staff is seeking an additional budget of $50,000. It is anticipated services will cease by December unless a qualified deputy director of finance is not found. Municipal finance positions are challenging to fill since they require specialized financial skills sets. Recruitment efforts are underway for the vacancies in the department. However, it is uncertain how successful recruitment efforts will be to fill the vacancies in the next three months.

To continue to provide business continuity and ensure adequate staff resources for reporting, auditing, and other department projects, it is recommended that the City continue to contract with Catacutan for the provision of executive level finance, auditing and accounting services. Staff proposes to fully fund the contract for up to 30 hours a week, but occasionally up to 40 hours per week depending on operational needs, and for the duration of up to three months or longer, depending on the recruitment of the regular of the two vacant positions. The length of the contract is up to one year but can be terminated sooner.

OPTIONS
Approve Amendment #2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Catacutan Consulting, PGCC 10-2-24

Approve Amendment #2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Catacutan Consulting, LLC., increasing the previous contract by $50,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000.

Take no action. This would result in the conclusion of the Catacutan contract services to the City and would severely impact the ability of the ASD to meet project timelines and current service delivery levels, including issuance of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

This action will increase the contract in the amount of $50,000. For FY 2024-25, the $50,000 is projected to be offset by cost savings from vacancies. No additional general fund appropriation is required.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Proposed Contract
PGCC 10-2-24

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AGREEMENT

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CATACUTAN CONSULTING, LLC
This Second Amendment to City of Pacific Grove Agreement for Professional Services Catacutan Consulting ("First Amendment") is entered into by the City of Pacific Grove. a political subdivision of the State of California ("City'') and Catacutan Consulting, LLC hereinafter called “Catacutan” and shall be effective October 3, 2024.

The City and Catacutan hereby agree to the following terms:

1. On June 10, 2024, the City and Catacutan entered into a City of Pacific Grove Agreement for Professional Services in Exhibit A to the Agreement and generally described as:
finance, budget and accounting services,

2. The Agreement provided Catacutan agrees to the following in section 2 of the agreement. “PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $40,000.”

3. The purpose of this Agreement is revised to the following section, 2: “PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $150,000”

4. Except as modified by this Second Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

TN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Catacutan have executed this Second Amendment as of the day and year written below.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By: By:

Matthew Mogensen Jessie Catacutan
City Manager
Date: Date:

By:

Brian Pierik
City Attorney
Date:

PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 9 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: David Avenue Sidewalk Project (CIP23-21) – Award of Contract CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Award an agreement with JMS Cement Contractors, Inc. In an amount not to exceed $510,020 plus a 10% contingency

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

DISCUSSION
As part of the FY22/23 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the City Council approved the David Avenue Sidewalk Project with an initial budget of $360,000 funded through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). During the budget review at their July 13, 2023 meeting, the Council decided to reallocate $278,000 from ARPA funds, previously designated for the Skate Park and Purple Pipe Projects, to the David Avenue Sidewalk Project. This adjustment raised the total project budget to $638,000.

This multi-year project aims to install sidewalks and improve pedestrian safety along David Avenue, between Patterson Lane and Montecito Avenue. David Avenue is a major arterial road, heavily trafficked and providing access to the Del Monte Neighborhood, local schools, and commercial areas.

At the February 7, 2024 meeting, continued to February 14, 2024, City staff presented the City Engineer’s preliminary assessment, offering the Council a high-level overview of the challenges and potential costs of installing sidewalks on both sides of David Avenue. This presentation sought guidance on how to proceed, given that the allocated funds would not cover the entire stretch. The full agenda report is available here.

The Council ultimately directed staff to prioritize installing sidewalks on the school side of David Avenue. It was also communicated that moving forward would require additional engineering work and phasing the project, as the allocated budget would not cover the entire length of the sidewalk.

To maximize the use of the allocated ARPA funds and effectively improve pedestrian safety on David Avenue within this fiscal year, the City Engineer and staff developed a phased approach. This year’s project phase will involve installing new sidewalks along the entire school side of David Avenue between Congress Avenue and Clark Lane, as well as filling in existing gaps in the sidewalks leading to this block near the school. The specific sidewalk gaps to be addressed include: (1) the residential side of PGCC 10-2-24

this block near the school. The specific sidewalk gaps to be addressed include: (1) the residential side of David Avenue from Presidio Lane to mid-block on David Avenue and (2) a segment of Presidio Blvd (adjacent to 1106 Presidio Blvd) down to David Avenue. By filling in the sidewalk gaps, we aim to enhance safety and provide designated routes for pedestrians traveling towards David Avenue and Congress Avenue.

The attached map shows the specific locations.

On August 21, 2024, the City issued a call for bids for the installation of sidewalks along David Avenue. The bidding period closed on September 13, 2024, and four bids were received:

Contractor Bid Amount
JMS Cement Contractors, Inc $510,020
Don Chapin Company, Inc $560,000
Monterey Peninsula Engineering $560,755
FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc $711,910
JMS Cement Contractors has qualified as the lowest responsible bidder.

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work includes:

Installation of ~2,500 SF of sidewalk
Installation of 995 LF of curb and gutter
Installation and/or reconstruction of 1,870 SF of driveway approach Construction of 9 curb ramps
Various associated improvements including pavement markings, pavement transitions, cross gutters, signs etc.

AGREEMENT
If approved, the City’s standard construction agreement template will be harnessed. This agreement has been approved by the California Joint Powers Authority (CJPIA) and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
A mailer was sent to all adjacent residents in February 2024, immediately following the City Council meeting, to inform them of the Council’s direction and the future construction. An updated mailer will be sent out to adjacent residents after the contract is executed and the pre-construction meeting is held.

This mailer will provide important details, including the expected construction timeline, a contact number for questions, and links to additional information.

The City has also collaborated closely with the school district throughout the engineering phase and will continue to work with them during construction to keep them informed and minimize any disruptions.

CONSTRUCTION TIMING & UPDATES
If the contract is awarded, the agreement will be executed, and construction will begin promptly. Staff remains on schedule to ensure that the ARPA funds allocated for this project are fully utilized before the December 31, 2024 deadline.

Regular updates will be shared in the City Manager’s Report and on the ClearGov Project pages.

FUTURE PHASES
PGCC 10-2-24

FUTURE PHASES
Future phases of this David Avenue Sidewalk Project will return to the Council for consideration for additional funding in future CIPs.

OPTIONS

1. Authorize the agreement
Do not approve the agreement. If the agreement is not authorized, the City will be unable to use the ARPA funds before the deadline. As a result, the prior expenses of $13,035.62 would become ineligible for ARPA reimbursement and would need to be covered by the general fund.

2. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The project has a budget of $638,000, with $13,035.62 spent so far on engineering. There is enough funding available to cover the cost of this construction agreement.

The remaining funds will be used to cover upcoming engineering expenses, including costs related to the bidding phase, which have not yet been invoiced, as well as project management activities during the construction phase.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Project Map
PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 9 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Boards, Commissions and Committee Appointments CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointments of Roger O'Sullivan to Recreation Board ending January 31, 2029 and Greg Marshall to the Economic Development Commission ending January 31, 2027.

DISCUSSION
The appointments of Roger O'Sullivan and Greg Marshall fill vacancies on the Recreation Board and Economic Development Commission, respectively.

City committees play a vital role in city government and provide opportunities for residents to become engaged in civic activities and work to improve local governance. We are very fortunate to have many highly qualified and talented residents willing to serve on City committees.

The term for Recreation Board members is 4 years. The term for Economic Development Commission members is 2 years.

Mayoral appointments to City committees must be confirmed by Council (Charter Article 26). Further regulations and policy regarding appointments can be found in PGMC Chapter 3.02 and Policy 000-5.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact for appointments to committees.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Redacted Application - O'Sullivan
Redacted Application - Marshall
PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

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, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes: May 15, 2024, June 11, 2024, and July 9, 2024
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
ARB Minutes 5.15.24
ARB Minutes 6.11.24
ARB Minutes 7.9.24
PGCC 10-2-24

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, May 14, 2024, 3:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Bornstein called the meeting to order at 3:00pm. Senior Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following Board Members present in Chamber: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, Members Sutphen, and Huff.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Member Huff and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the Board voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 5-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, Member Huff, and Member Sutphen NOES: None
ABSENT: None

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) None

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Peake provided Council Liaison announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment was received by Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

A. Written General Public Comment
Action: Written General Public Comment was received.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Draft April 9, 2024, Minutes.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the Draft April 9, 2024, ARB Minutes as submitted.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Chair Bornstein made corrections to the April 9, 2024, ARB minutes.

Action: Upon a motion by Secretary Brooks and seconded by Member Huff, the Board voted to approve the Consent agenda, as amended, with corrections to the Draft April 9, 2024, ARB minutes.

PGCC 10-2-24

Motion carried 4-0-1-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Secretary Brooks, Member Huff, and Member Sutphen NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Vice Chair Boyle (absent from April 9, 2024, meeting) ABSENT: None

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0208 for 127 Forest Avenue (APN#006-157-024) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval to the Planning Commission of the proposed Architectural Permit, subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15303, Class 3, Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Applicant, William Mefford, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public comments were received from Lisa Ciani, Patsy Volpe, Stuart Newhouse, and Bruce McGlynn.

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Boyle and seconded by Member Sutphen, the Board voted to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of the proposed Architectural Permit (AP-23- 0208), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15303, Class 3, Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Motion carried 5-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, Member Huff, and Member Sutphen NOES: None
ABSENT: None
B. Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0346 for 206 Lobos Ave (APN 006-315-003-000) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-4
Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0346 to the Planning Commission, subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15301, Class 1, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Applicant, Jim Gish, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public comments were received from Rebecca Saathof, Hunter Eldridge, Inge Lorentzen Daumer PGCC 10-2-24

Action: Upon a motion by Member Huff and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the Board voted to continue the item to the June 6, 2024, regular meeting of the ARB for the applicant to return with a redesign that better conforms to Architectural Review Guideline numbers 5, 7, 28, and 34.

Motion carried 5-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, Member Huff, and Member Sutphen NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C. Architectural Permit 23-0299, 311 Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Grove (APN 006-252-001) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-2 / High Density Residential 21.8 du/ac Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Facilities
Recommended Action: Approve Architectural Permit 23-0299 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 2 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Secretary Brooks recused himself stating that he lived within 500 feet of the proposed project site.

Joe Sidor, Senior Contract Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Applicant/Owner, Kathryn Kranen, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public comments were received from Robert Sanuki, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer Action: Upon a motion by Member Huff and seconded by Vice Chair Boyle, the Board voted to approve Architectural Permit 23-0299 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 2 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction).

Motion carried 4-0-1-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Member Huff, and Member Sutphen NOES: None
RECUSAL(s): Secretary Brooks
ABSENT: None

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
None

10. NEW BUSINESS
None

11. PRESENTATIONS
None

12. NEXT MEETING - June 6, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bornstein adjourned the meeting at 4:46 p.m.

PGCC 10-2-24

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, June 11, 2024, 3:00 P.M.

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

Board Member Huff
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 575
Los Angeles, CA 90067

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Bornstein called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm. Chair Bornstein announced that Member Huff has requested to attend remotely and asked for a motion from the Board.

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Boyle and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the Board voted to allow the remote attendance of Member Huff.

Motion carried 4-0-0-1, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, and Member Sutphen NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Member Huff
Chair Bornstein asked Member Huff if anyone was present with him at his location.

Member Huff stated that he was alone in a conference room, and he had posted the agenda outside.

Roll call was taken with the following Board Members present: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, and Member Sutphen in Chamber, Member Huff participating remotely via Zoom.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Secretary Brooks, seconded by Vice Chair Boyle, the Board voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 5-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, Member Huff, and Member Sutphen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PGCC 10-2-24

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) NONE

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Beck provided Council Liaison announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
NONE
A. Written General Public Comment
NONE

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
NONE

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
NONE

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0346 for 206 Lobos Ave (APN 006-315-003-000) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-4 Coastal Zone: No Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0346 to the Planning Commission, subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15301, Class 1, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Member Sutphen recused herself stating that her friendship with an adjacent neighbor created a conflict of interest.

Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Applicant, Barbara Kloss, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public comments were received from Rebecca Saathof and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon a motion by Member Huff, and seconded by Chair Bornstein, the Board voted to recommend approval of Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0346 to the Planning Commission, subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15301, Class 1, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities.

Motion failed 2-2-1, by the following tie vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Member Huff
NOES: Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks
RECUSAL: Member Sutphen
ABSENT: None
PGCC 10-2-24

B. Architectural Permit (AP) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) 24-0017 for 224 Congress Avenue (APN:006-303-003).

Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1/ Medium Density Residential (12.1 du/ac) Coastal Zone: No Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of Architectural Permit (AP) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) 24-0017 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).

Reference: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
Garrett McCown, Associate Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Applicant, Anatoly Ostretsov, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public comments were received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Carol Edmonds, and Jeff Edmonds
Action: Upon a motion by Member Sutphen, and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the Board voted to approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) 24-0017 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).

Motion carried 5-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Member Huff, Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks and Member Sutphen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C. Architectural Permit 24-0051, 985 Piedmont Avenue, Pacific Grove (APN 007-611-032) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / Low Density Residential 5.4 du/ac Coastal Zone: No Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Approve Architectural Permit 24-0051 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Joseph Sidor, Senior Contract Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Applicant, Allen Robinson, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public comments were received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon a motion by Member Sutphen, and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the Board voted to approve Architectural Permit 24-0051 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction).

Motion carried 5-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Bornstein, Member Huff, ice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks and Member PGCC 10-2-24

Sutphen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
NONE

10. NEW BUSINESS
NONE

11. PRESENTATIONS
NONE

12. NEXT MEETING - July 9, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bornstein adjourned the meeting at 4:53 p.m.

PGCC 10-2-24

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

MEETING MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, July 9, 2024, 3:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Boyle called the meeting to order at 3:00pm. Present in the chamber: Vice Chair Boyle, member Huff, and member Brooks.

Chair Bornstein and member Sutphen were absent.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Staff requested to continue Item 8C to the August 13, 2024, ARB meeting.

ACTION: Upon motion by Secretary Brooks and seconded by Member Huff, the board voted to approve the agenda, as amended, continuing Item 8C to the August 13, 2024, ARB meeting.

Motion carried 3-0-2, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Vice Chair Boyle, Board members Brooks and Huff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Bornstein, member Sutphen

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) NONE

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Beck provided Council Liaison announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
NONE
A. Written General Public Comment
NONE

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
NONE

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
NONE

REGULAR AGENDA
PGCC 10-2-24

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) and Tree Permit with Development (TPD) 23-0007, 1015 Hillside Avenue (APN: 007-592-022-000).

Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1/ Medium Density Residential (9.7 du/ac) Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Approve Architectural Permit and Tree Permit with Development (AP/TPD 23-0007) subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Section 15303(a), Class 3, New Construction, Categorical Exemption.

Reference: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
Garrett McCown, Associate Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Derek Johnson, Project Engineer, was allowed 10 minutes to present.

Public Comment was received by Inge Lorentzen Daumer and Lisa Ciani.

ACTION: Upon motion by Secretary Brooks and seconded by Member Huff, the board voted to approve Architectural Permit and Tree Permit with Development (AP/TPD 23- 0007) subject to the recommended findings, Section 15303(a), Class 3, New Construction, Categorical Exemption, and conditions of approval, as amended, to include all recommendations on pages two and three of the Arborist’s Report regarding the six remaining trees.

Motion carried 3-0-2, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, and Member Huff NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Bornstein, Member Sutphen
B. Architectural Permit (AP) and Tree Permit with Development (TPD) 24-0071, 418 Grove Acre Avenue, Pacific Grove (APN 006-421-029)
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1-B-3 / Low Density Residential 4.4 du/ac Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Facilities
Recommended Action: Approve Architectural Permit and Tree Permit with Development 24-0071 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 2 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Joseph Sidor, Senior Contract Planner, provided the staff presentation.

Jeanne Byrne, project architect, was given 10 minutes to present.

No public comment was received.

ACTION: Upon motion by Member Huff and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the board voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 3-0-2, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Vice Chair Boyle, Secretary Brooks, and Member Huff PGCC 10-2-24

NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Bornstein, Member Sutphen
C. After-The-Fact Downtown Sign Permit (DSP) 24-0099 for 542 Lighthouse Avenue (APN: 006-173-003-000). – Item Continued to the August 13, 2024 ARB meeting Zoning District/General Plan Designation: C-1-T/Downtown Commercial Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Consider After-The-Fact Downtown Sign Permit (DSP 24-0099) and whether a finding of unique design of the building, site or use warrants special consideration for increased signage allowance, subject to the conditions of approval, and Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, Categorical Exemption.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
NONE

10. NEW BUSINESS
NONE

11. PRESENTATIONS
NONE

12. NEXT MEETING - August 13, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bornstein adjourned the meeting at 3:28 p.m.

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 10-2-24

Agenda No. 10 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: January 2024 through July 2024 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
PC Minutes 1.11.24
PC Minutes 2.8.24 (Adjourned)
Special PC Minutes 2.15.24
PC Minutes 3.14.24
PC Minutes 4.11.24
PC Minutes 5.9.24
PC Minutes 6.13.24
PC Minutes 7.11.24
PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, January 11, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

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, and Sawyer. Commissioner Nodzenski attended the meeting remotely stating that his “just cause” was a potentially contagious illness. He also stated that no persons 18 years of age or older were in the room with him thus fulfilling Brown Act requirements for remote participation at a public meeting. Commissioner Davison was absent.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the Commission voted to approve the 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

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Commission announcements were provided by Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Sawyer, Fredrickson and Kubica.

Action: Chair Lilley requested that the Commission call a special meeting to conduct a site visit for an upcoming project located at 420 La Calle Corte.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the Commission voted to schedule a Special Meeting to conduct a site visit for an upcoming project located at 420 La Calle Corte.

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

PGCC 10-2-24

AYES: Chair Lilley, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
Staff announcements were made by Interim City Manager Perrault and Associate Planner Campbell.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Peake provided Council Liaison announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
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 Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Mike Gibbs, Rebecca Lee, and Lisa Ciani.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Planning Commission 2023 Workplan –This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public. The item was placed on the Regular Agenda under item 8D.

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: Receive the revised Planning Commission 2023 Workplan.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the October 5, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting – This item was moved to the Regular Agenda under item 8A.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the October 5, 2023 Planning Commission Special Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 10-2-24

B. Minutes of the October 12, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting - This item was moved to the Regular Agenda under item 8B.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the October 12, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Minutes of the October 19, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting - This item was moved to the Regular Agenda under item 8C.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the October 19, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting.

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

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Minutes of the October 5, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting – (previously item 7A) Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the October 5, 2023 Planning Commission Special Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
No public comment received.

Action: Commissioner Sawyer suggested corrections to the October 5, 2023, PC meeting minutes.

Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the Commission voted to approve the October 5, 2023, PC meeting minutes 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
B. Minutes of the October 12, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – (previously item 7B) Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the October 12, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 10-2-24

Public comment was received by Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Commissioner Sawyer suggested corrections to the October 12, 2023, PC meeting minutes.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the commission voted to approve the October 12, 2023, PC meeting minutes 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
C. Minutes of the October 19, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting – (previously item 7C) Reference: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the October 19, 2023, Planning Commission Special Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
No public comment was received.

Action: Commissioner Sawyer suggested corrections to the October 19, 2023, PC meeting minutes.

Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to approve the October 19, 2023, PC meeting minutes 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
D. Planning Commission 2023 Workplan – (previously item 6A) 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: Receive the revised Planning Commission 2023 Workplan.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Public comment was received by Lisa Ciani.

PGCC 10-2-24

Action: Planning Commission received the 2023 Workplan. Chair Lilley stated that the 2023 Workplan was approved by “consensus.”
E. Planning Commission Annual Report for 2023 – (previously item 8A) 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: The Planning Commission review and adopt the Annual Report for 2023, for subsequent presentation to the City Council.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, the Commission voted to accept the Annual Report, amending section B, item 14 to state “appeal pending” and forward the report on to City Council.

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
F. Proposed Subcommittee on Transportation. – (previously item 8B) 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: The Chair recommends that the Planning Commission create a Transportation Subcommittee to review and make recommendations on circulation issues. The Subcommittee shall be empowered to develop a work program in order to describe a future vision of transportation or circulation in Pacific Grove. The Subcommittee should address pertinent issues, including but not limited to, the location and use of major thoroughfares and transportation routes; the development of a balanced, multi-modal transportation network; increased access to alternative modes of transit, and rethinking parking needs throughout the City.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the Planning Commission voted to approve the establishment of a transportation subcommittee in order to review and make recommendations on circulation issues. The subcommittee, to be comprised of no PGCC 10-2-24

more than three members, will serve for six months, subject to subsequent renewal. The subcommittee will select and address permanent circulation issues and develop a work plan for subsequent submittal to the Planning Commission.

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

AYES: Chair Lilley, Commissioners Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika NOES: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Fredrickson,
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Chair Lilley, the Commission voted to appoint Commissioners Nodzenski and Davison to the Transportation Subcommittee.

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

AYES: Chair Lilley, Commissioners Sawyer, Nodzenski, and Kubika NOES: Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Fredrickson,
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Amend Chapter 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to Story Poles. Continued from the December 14, 2023 PC regular 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
Public Comment was received from Mayor Peake and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Commissioner Sawyer suggested that item two of the Resolution of Intent be amended to say, “Request the City Council direct the City Manager to authorize City Staff to assist the Planning Commission in the preparation of the proposed legislative amendment.” Action: Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the Commission voted to approve the Resolution of Intention to Amend Chapter 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to Story Poles, 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 10-2-24

B. 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. Continued from the December 14, 2023, PC Regular 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
Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Commissioner Sawyer suggested that item two of the Resolution of Intent be amended to say, “Request the City Council direct the City Manager to authorize City Staff to assist the Planning Commission in the preparation of the proposed legislative amendment.” Action: Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, Fredrickson, the Commission voted to approve the Resolution of Intention to Amend Chapter 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to Story Poles, 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
C. Status of Planning Commission Resolution of Intention to amend PGMC Chapter

23.64.190(d) related to hotel parking.

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: Receive a report regarding the status of the Planning Commission Resolution of Intention to amend PGMC Chapter 23.64.190(d) related to hotel parking.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Planning Commission Chair
No public comment was received.

Action: Planning Commission received a report from Interim City Manager Perrault.

PGCC 10-2-24

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS

12. NEXT MEETING - February 8, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT – 8:46 pm
PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
This Meeting Adjourned to Thursday, March 14, 2024, 6:00 pm Thursday, February 8, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
From: Aaron Campbell, 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: Staff recommends the Planning Commission (PC) elect a Chair and Vice Chair for a one-year term in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) §

3.02.050(b), Members – Terms. At the pleasure of the Commission, a Secretary may also be appointed or the Chair may request staff prepare Planning Commission minutes.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

4. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only)

5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
PGCC 10-2-24

CONSENT AGENDA

7. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

8. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. 2023 Draft General Plan Annual Progress Report
From: Aaron Campbell, 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 the 2023 Draft General Plan Annual Progress Report required by the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner

REGULAR AGENDA

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Coastal Development Permit 24-0010, Temporary Special Events in the Coastal Zone, Pacific Grove
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: O & unclassified / Open Space, Recreation Trail, & undesignated
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15323, Class 23, Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Coastal PGCC 10-2-24

Development Permit (CDP 24-0010), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 23 Categorical Exemption for Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings (CEQA Guidelines Section 15323).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
B. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects
From: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
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: Hold a discussion on potential projects for consideration in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and provide a recommendation to the Public Works Department.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner

10. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

11. NEW BUSINESS

12. PRESENTATIONS

13. NEXT MEETING - February 15, 2024

14. ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, February 15, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL -
Vice Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Senior Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Kubica, Sawyer, Sweigert, and Nodzenski. Commissioner Fredrickson was absent.

Vice Chair Murphy introduced the new Community Development Director, Karen Vaughn, and new Planning Commissioner, David Sweigert.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the Commission voted to approve the agenda.

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

AYES: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Sweigert, Sawyer, Nodzenski, Davison, and Kubika NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Commission announcement made by Vice Chair Murphy.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Council Liaison announcements were given.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
Action: Received written public comments.

Action: General public comment was received from Mike Gibbs.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
PGCC 10-2-24

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS
A. Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Amendments, and General Plan Amendments Project From: Joseph Sidor, Contract 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 agency and public input and provide comment on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Amendments, and General Plan Amendments Project.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Action: Planning Commission received a presentation from Rincon Consultants, Inc. representative.

Action: Planning Commission received public input on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Grove Housing Element Update from Vince Tuminello, Mike Gibbs, Peggy Gibbs, Nancy*, Marsha*, Susan Caitlin, Jane Haines Action: Vice Chair Murphy, Planning Commissioners Sawyer, Nodzenski, Kubica and Sweigert provided comments on the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Grove Housing Element Update.
*No last name provided.

12. NEXT MEETING - March 14, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.

PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, March 14, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – 6:00 p.m.

Vice Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Senior Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Sawyer, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert. Commissioner Fredrickson was absent.

A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
From: Aaron Campbell, 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: Staff recommends the Planning Commission (PC) elect a Chair and Vice Chair for a one-year term in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) §

3.02.050(b), Members – Terms. At the pleasure of the Commission, a Secretary may also be appointed or the Chair may request staff prepare Planning Commission minutes.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Action: On a nomination by Commissioner Sawyer, the Commission voted to elect Vice Chair Murphy as Chair of the Planning Commission.

Don Murphy was elected Chair of the Planning Commission by the following 6-0-1 vote:

AYES: Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioners Sawyer, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
Action: On a nomination by Commissioner Kubica, the Commission voted to elect Commissioner Sawyer as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission.

Claudia Sawyer was elected Vice Chair of the Planning Commission by the following 6-0-1 vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Commissioners Sawyer, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
PGCC 10-2-24

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Commissioner Davison, the commission voted to approve the agenda.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Staff announcements were made by Community Development Director Vaughn.

Commission announcements were made by Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, and Commissioner Nodzenski.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Liaison announcements were made Mayor Peake.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
From: Aaron Campbell, Associate 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
Action: Receive Written Public Comments
Action: General public comments were received from Mike Gibbs, Rebecca Lee, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Jane Haines, and Lisa Ciani.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Site Visits for Proposed Development Application Projects - This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda by Vice Chair Sawyer and moved to item 8C on the regular agenda.

From: Karen Vaughn, Community Development 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 report.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director B. Housing Element Annual Progress Report
From: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
PGCC 10-2-24

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 the city's Housing Element Annual Progress Report (HE APR) for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

Reference: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
C. 2023 Draft General Plan Annual Progress Report
From: Aaron Campbell, 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 the 2023 Draft General Plan Annual Progress Report required by the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting - This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda by Vice Chair Sawyer and moved to item 8D on the regular agenda.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Kubica and seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer, the commission voted to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Coastal Development Permit 24-0010, Temporary Special Events in the Coastal Zone, Pacific Grove; Continued from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 8, 2024.

PGCC 10-2-24

From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: O & unclassified / Open Space, Recreation Trail, & undesignated
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15323, Class 23, Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 24-0010), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 23 Categorical Exemption for Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings (CEQA Guidelines Section 15323).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Robin Venuti, and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Davison and seconded by Commissioner Sweigert, the commission voted to approve Coastal Development Permit 24-0010 subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 23 Categorical Exemption for Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings (CEQA Guidelines Section 15323).

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
B. Architectural Permit/Use Permit/Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0158) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0158), 420 La Calle Corte, Pacific Grove (APN 007-072-024) From: Dara Sanders, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1-B-4/Low Density Residential Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Architectural Permit, Use Permit and Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0158), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0158), subject to findings and conditions of approval.

Reference: Dara Sanders, Contract Planner
Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani, Gadi Maier, Tony Ciani and Catherine McCulloch..

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer the Commission voted to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Architectural Permit, Use Permit and Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0158), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0158), subject to findings and conditions of approval, as amended (amended Condition #1 to remove Zoning Administrator approval of an historic relocation permit, amended Condition #2 to specify permit expiration of one year, addition of condition requiring a construction PGCC 10-2-24

management plan and schedule at time of building permit submittal, and addition of condition that the project utilize materials to reduce the potential for bird strikes.).

Motion carried 5-1-1, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Kubica, Nodzenski, and Davison NOES: Commissioner Sweigert
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
C. Site Visits for Proposed Development Application Projects - Previously Item 6A.

From: Karen Vaughn, Community Development 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 report.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Public Comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Tony Ciani.

Action: Planning Commission received the report from Community Development Director Vaughn.

D. Minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting – Previously Item 7A.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
No public comment was received.

Action: Vice Chair Sawyer suggested corrections to the minutes.

Action: On a motion by Vice Chair Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the Commission voted to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular meeting as amended.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS - NONE

10. NEW BUSINESS - NONE
PGCC 10-2-24

11. PRESENTATIONS
A. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects
From: Aaron Campbell, 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: Hold a discussion on potential projects for consideration in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and provide a recommendation to the Public Works Department.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
No public comment was received.

Action: The Planning Commission received a presentation from Senior Planner Campbell and held a discussion on potential projects for consideration in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

12. NEXT MEETING - April 11, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT – 10:14 pm
PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, April 11, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – 6:00 p.m.

Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Senior Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Staff announcements were made by Senior Planner Campbell and Interim Director Perrault.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
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.

PGCC 10-2-24

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update – This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public and moved to item 9A on the regular agenda.

From: Karen Vaughn, Community Development 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 report.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the December 14, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting From: Aaron Campbell, 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: Approve the minutes of the December 14, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer, the Commission voted to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Member of the public, Mike Gibbs, pulled item 6A from the Consent Agenda and the Commission placed it as Item 9A on the Regular Agenda.

Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update (previously Item 6A) PGCC 10-2-24

From: Karen Vaughn, Community Development 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 report.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Public comment was received from Mike Gibbs.

Action: Planning Commission received the Housing Element Monthly Status Update.

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation on the City Council's Focused Priority Areas and Goals 2023-2025 Reference: Bob Perrault, Interim City Manager
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
No public comment was received.

Action: Planning Commission received the presentation from Interim City Manager, Bob Perrault.

12. NEXT MEETING - May 9, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT – 7:15 pm
PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, May 9, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – 6:00 p.m.

Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Chair Murphy acknowledged that the following commissioners were present in Chamber: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer, the commission voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Commission announcements were made by Chair Murphy.

Staff announcements were made by Community Development Director Vaughn.

City Attorney announcements were made by Ephraim Margolin.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Liaison announcements were made by Council Member Coletti.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
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 Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

PGCC 10-2-24

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the January 11, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the January 11, 2024 Planning Commission Regular meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the February 15, 2024 Planning Commission Special Meeting Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the February 15, 2024 Planning Commission Special Meeting
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Sweigert, the Commission voted to approve the Consent Agenda.

Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0290, 107 14th Street, Pacific Grove (APN 006-183-016)
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR / Medium High Density Residential 10 - 20 du/ac
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation
PGCC 10-2-24

Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Architectural Permit and Coastal Development Permit subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Commissioner Sawyer declared ex-parte communication with Mr. Davis asking further clarification regarding lateral walls.

No public comment was received.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Davison, the Commission voted to approve the Architectural Permit and Coastal Development Permit subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert NOES: Vice Chair Sawyer
ABSENT: None
B. Coastal Development Permit 24-0067, Temporary Installation of Physical Measures in the Coastal Zone, Pacific Grove
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: O / Open Space Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 24-0067), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 8 Categorical Exemption, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Public Comment was received from Amanda Priest, Vicki Pearse, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Kim.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, the Commission voted to approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 24-0067), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 8 Categorical Exemption, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308) with an amendment specifying the length of the CDP as five years or the termination of the MOU.

Motion carried 7-0-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
PGCC 10-2-24

NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C. Architectural Permit (AP) and Variance (VAR) 23-0156, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0156, 200 1st St./113 2nd St., APN 006-223-002-000
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR/HDR 19.8 Du/ac Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Architectural Permit (AP) and Variance (VAR) 23-0156, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0156, subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Commissioner Sawyer declared ex-parte communication with Scott Hall for an explanation of what is considered permeable.

Commissioner Frederickson declared ex-parte communication with the architect, Jeanne Byrne, concerning setbacks, particularly on 2nd Street.

Public comment was received by Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Thom Akeman.

Upon a motion by Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the Commission voted to approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Variance (VAR) 23-0156, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0156, subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as amended to include a new condition of approval prohibiting demolition during harbor seal pupping season (as defined by PGMC 14.04.035).

Commissioner Sweigert asked for a friendly amendment requesting the removal of the variance.

Chair Murphy did not accept the friendly amendment.

Motion carried 4-3-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Commissioners Fredrickson, Kubica, Nodzenski NOES: Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Davison, and Sweigert ABSENT: None

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission 2024 Work Plan
Reference: Donald Murphy, Chair
Recommended Action: Receive the Planning Commission 2024 Work Plan CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Public Comment was received by Lisa Ciani.

Action: Planning Commission received the Planning Commission 2024 Work Plan.

PGCC 10-2-24

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS

12. NEXT MEETING – June 13, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT – 8:12 pm
PGCC 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, June 13, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00pm. Senior Planner Campbell conducted roll call with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners, Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert. Commissioner Fredrickson absent. Commissioner Kubica requested attendance via Zoom.

A. Motion to Authorize Teleconference Attendance by Andrew Kubica Pursuant to AB2449 (Providing childcare).

Action: Upon a motion by Chair Murphy and seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer, the commission voted to approve teleconference attendance (Zoom) by Andrew Kubica.

Motion carried 5-0-1, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Davison, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
Commissioner Kubica announced that no one over the age eighteen was present with him in the room.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Community Development Director Vaughn requested that Item 8B, Coastal Development Permit (CDP) #23-0066 (123 17th St.) be removed from the agenda. Director Vaughn explained that staff had submitted a CDP Determination of Exemption to the Coastal Commission on May 15th which was challenged by a member of the public on May 23rd. A response to the challenge was received from the Coastal Commission on June 10th, which disagreed with the merits of the challenge and upheld the city’s Determination of Exemption.

Being exempt from the requirement for a CDP, the project is no longer under the purview of the Planning Commission.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Commissioner Sweigert, the commission voted to approve the agenda, as amended, with the removal of Item 8B: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) #23-0066, 123 17th St.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Davison, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
PGCC 10-2-24

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) No Commission announcements were made.

No Staff announcements were made.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Coletti provided Council Liaison announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
Action: Written General Public Comment was received.

Action: General Public Comment was received by Lisa Ciani.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Planning Commission 2024 Workplan.

Reference: Don Murphy, Chair
Recommended Action: Receive workplan.

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

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the March 14, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the minutes of the March 14, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the April 11, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the April 11, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

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

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Sawyer and seconded by Commissioner Sweigert, the commission voted to approve the Consent Agenda.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Davison, Kubica, PGCC 10-2-24

and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Resolution Recommending that the City Council adopt a Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 23.45 of the Municipal Code regarding timeshare projects.

From: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Proposed Ordinance not subject to CEQA based on Guideline Sections:
15060(c)(3) and 15378; 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3); and 150308 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 23.45 of the Municipal Code to add a definition of timeshare project and prohibit advertising and sale thereof.

Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Vice Chair Sawyer, the commission voted to adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 23.45 of the Municipal Code to add a definition of timeshare project and prohibit advertising and sale thereof, as amended to include minor text amendments.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Davison, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
B. Coastal Development Permit No. 24-0066, 123 17th St (APN 006-154-14). – This item was removed from the Agenda by Community Development Director Vaughn.

From: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR
Coastal Zone: Yes
PGCC 10-2-24

Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0066, subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction).

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Housing Element Update - Consideration of Alternative Sites and Methods in lieu of the Three Unclassified Sites in order to Achieve the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Requirements.

From: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
Recommended Action: Consider alternative sites and methods for the Housing Element Update to accommodate the City's RHNA requirements and provide a recommendation to the City Council.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Public comments were received from Lisa Ciani, Shannon, Marsha, and Christine Diiorio.

Action: Upon a motion by Chair Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Sweigert, the commission voted to recommend, with full consensus of the Planning Commission, Options 1, 2, 3, and 6 as alternative sites/methods for the Housing Element Update to accommodate the City’s RHNA requirements.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Davison, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Fredrickson
Action: The Planning Commission wished to relay to Council that Options 4 and 5 were considered acceptable by a majority of the Planning Commission, however Vice Chair Sawyer and Commissioner Sweigert were not favorable to up-zoning R-1 districts to higher density districts (R-3).

Action: The Planning Commission wished to relay to Council that they had no concerns with including any of the individual sites contained within Option 8 if they were needed to meet the City’s RHNA + buffer requirements.

Action: The Planning Commission wished to relay to Council that they PGCC 10-2-24

recommend the utilization of only those alternative sites/methods necessary to meet the City’s minimum RHNA + buffer requirements. The Planning Commission does not recommend accommodating more housing capacity than is required as part of the 6th cycle RHNA + buffer.

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS

12. NEXT MEETING – July 11, 2024

13. ADJOURNMENT – 9:25 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 10-2-24

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, July 11, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:00pm and took verbal roll call. The following commissioners were present in Chamber: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Kubica, Fredrickson, Nodzenski, and Sweigert. Commissioner Davison was absent.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Community Development Director Vaughn requested that Item 9A, Policy Update Discussion and Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and CEQA Compliance, be moved to the first item of the regular agenda.

Chair Murphy continued item 9B, Report of the Transportation Subcommittee, to the August 8, 2024, regular meeting of the Planning Commission due to the absence of Commissioner Davison.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Commissioner Kubica, the commission voted to approve the agenda, as amended.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Fredrickson, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) No Commission announcements were made.

Director Vaughn provided staff announcements.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Coletti provided Council Liaison announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
Action: No Written General Public Comment was received.

Action: General Public Comment was received by Mike Gibbs.

CONSENT AGENDA
PGCC 10-2-24

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Planning Commission 2024 Workplan.

Reference: Don Murphy, Chair
Recommended Action: Receive workplan
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the May 9, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the minutes of the May 9, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the June 13, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the June 13, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

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

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the commission voted to approve the Consent Agenda.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Fredrickson, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison

REGULAR AGENDA

8. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS – previously agenda Item 9 A. Policy Update Discussion and Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and CEQA Compliance – previously agenda item 9A From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation on changes to VMT analysis and CEQA PGCC 10-2-24

compliance, and provide a recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the proposed amendments to the City's VMT Implementation Policy.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Staff presentation provided by Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner.

Presentation provided by Michael Schmitt and Frederik Venter of Kimley-Horn.

Public comments were received from Tony Ciani, Kathy Durbin.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the commission voted to recommend to the City Council that it adopt the proposed amendments to the City's VMT Implementation Policy.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Fredrickson, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison

8. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS – previously agenda Item 8
A. Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0208 & Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0208 for 127 Forest Ave (APN 006-157-024) – previously agenda item 8A From: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission (PC) approve Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0208 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0208, subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15303, Class 3, Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Ex parte communication: Commissioner Kubica announced that he spoke with the applicant. Commissioner Nodzenski announced that he spoke with a neighbor. Neither had any new information to report.

Staff presentation provided by Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner.

Public comments were received from Tony Ciani, Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the commission voted to approve Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0208 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0208, subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA Guidelines §15303, Class 3, Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, as amended, to remove “not visible PGCC 10-2-24

from Ocean View Boulevard” from fact #8 and finding #2 of CDP 23-0208.

Action: Commissioner Sawyer requested a friendly amendment to add a condition of approval requiring landscape pavers to be permeable. Commissioner Fredrickson accepted the friendly amendment.

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

AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice Chair Sawyer, Commissioners Nodzenski, Fredrickson, Kubica, and Sweigert
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Davison

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS – moved to agenda Item 8.

A. Policy Update Discussion and Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and CEQA Compliance – this item was moved to Item 8A at the request of Director Vaughn.

From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation on changes to VMT analysis and CEQA compliance, and provide a recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the proposed amendments to the City's VMT Implementation Policy.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
B. Report of the Transportation Subcommittee – this item was continued to the August 8, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at the request of the Chair.

From: Commissioners Ross Davison and Peter Nodzenski
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 report from the Transportation Subcommittee.

Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS

12. NEXT MEETING – August 8, 2024
PGCC 10-2-24

13. ADJOURNMENT – 7:38 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 10-2-24

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: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Introduction of Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60 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;

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60; and

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

DISCUSSION
On July 17, 2024, there was an Agenda Report prepared by Councilmember Luke Coletti regarding a proposed Ordinance to amend the City’s Municipal Code to increase short-term rental penalties in accordance with SB 60 which is codified in Government Code Section 36900. Attachment 1 to this Agenda Report is the July 17, 2024 Agenda Report and Attachment 1 (Proposed Ordinance) and Attachment 2 (Government Code Section 36900). This Agenda item was continued to the City Council meeting on August 7, 2024.

On August 7, 2024, the City Council gave direction to the City Manager to return to the Council 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.

Attachment 2 to this Agenda Report is a proposed Ordinance which would amend Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to increase short-term rental penalties in accordance with SB 60.

The recommended action is to request the City Attorney to read the title of the Ordinance and then waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance and direct a summary of the proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.

PGCC 10-2-24

Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the Ordinance.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 - AR July 17, 2024 and two Attachments
2 - Proposed Ordinance
PGCC 10-2-24

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Luke Coletti
MEETING DATE: July 17, 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
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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. A proposed draft ordinance is attached (see Attachment-1).

DISCUSSION
California State Law and SB 60:

California Government 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 Attachment2).

AGENDA REPORT
PGCC 10-2-24

Pacific Grove Short-Term Rentals:

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.

PGCC 10-2-24

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the Ordinance.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance

2. Gov Code Section 36900
PGCC 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 10-2-24

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 health or 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 7.40.195 “Enforcement of Infractions Posing a Threat to Public Health or Safety” of PGMC Title 7, Chapter 7.40 shall be added as shown below in bold italics text.

7.40.195 Enforcement of Infractions Posing a Threat to Public Health or Safety.

PGCC 10-2-24

2 In lieu of, or in addition to any “Penalties” authorized by PGMC Section 7.40.190, the City may prosecute any person for any violation of the 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 or safety as enumerated in subsection (g). In no case shall such penalties exceed maximum fine amounts established pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900 et seq., or future amendments thereof.
(b) A fine shall not exceed $100.00 for a first violation for failure to license a short-term rental where short-term rental use of the residential property is an allowed use. Where short -term rental use of the residential property is not an allowed use, 7.40.195(c) shall apply. (c) A fine shall not exceed $1,500 for any other first violation of Chapter 7.40; (d) A fine shall not exceed $3,000 for a second violation of Chapter 7.40 within twelve consecutive months; and,
(e) 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. (f) 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.
(g) Infractions which pose a threat to public health or safety are the following:

PGCC 10-2-24

3 (1) Short-term rental use of residential property without a valid STR license; (2) Exceeding allowable occupancy limits (overnight);
(3) Exceeding allowable occupancy limits (daytime);
(4) Violation of the city’s codified noise ordinance;
(5) Operation of auctions, commercial functions, or other similar events; (6) Failure to dispose of solid waste;
(7) Failure to properly store waste and refuse bins;
(8) The STR owner, site manager, guest or any occupant of an STR unit engages in disorderly conduct at that site; and
(9) Any other incident or conduct which, upon the determination of the City Code Compliance Officer, poses a threat to public health or safety.

SECTION 3. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. 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 ____________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED: _________________________
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

PGCC 10-2-24

4 _________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 12 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: October 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pacific Grove Declaring Its Intent To Initiate Procedures For A Transition From At-Large To District-Based Council Member Elections
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to adopt Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pacific Grove Declaring Its Intent To Initiate Procedures For A Transition From At-Large To District-Based Council Member Elections in the form of Attachment 1

1. Motion to direct the City Manager to develop a tentative timeline for conducting public hearings, formulating proposed district maps scenarios and election sequencing, and present a draft ordinance to the City Council for action.

2. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement with LULAC to extend the date to complete the transition to district-based elections within the safe harbor provisions of Elections Code Section 10010 to March 31, 2025 provided that LULAC agrees to such an extension.

3. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a First Amendment to City of Pacific Grove Professional Services Agreement with National Demographic Corporation for Further Demographer Services in an amount not to exceed $49,000.

4. DISCUSSION
A. Background
July 9, 2002: SB 976 filed with the Secretary of State adding Chapter 1.5 to Division 14 of the California Elections Code known as the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) which became effective on January 1, 2003 (Attachment 2).

August 25, 2022: The City of Pacific Grove received a letter from Andrew Sandoval on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), hereafter 8.25.22 Letter (Attachment 3). The

8.25.22 Letter included a demand that the City change its at-large voting system to a by-district voting system for City Council elections. This 8.25.22 Letter was posted on the City’s website following receipt. At the time of receipt of the 8.25.22 Letter, the City of Santa Monica case involving CVRA issues, discussed below, had not yet been decided by the California Supreme Court.

March 6, 2024: The subject of the CVRA was discussed by the City Council. The discussion included reference to 8.25.22 Letter from LULAC and the City of Santa Monica case and other CVRA issues. At PGCC 10-2-24

reference to 8.25.22 Letter from LULAC and the City of Santa Monica case and other CVRA issues. At that meeting, the City Council authorized the City Manager to retain a demographer to perform a demographic analysis of the City.

July 17, 2024: City Manager Matt Mogensen submitted an Agenda Report which attached a copy of the report from National Demographic Corporation (NDC), Attachment 4 is a copy of that Agenda Report and the NDC Report.

August 23, 2024: City received by certified mail an undated letter (“8.23.24 Letter”) from Aidee Farias (LULAC District 12 Director), see Attachment 5. In this 8.23.24 Letter, LULAC formally requests the City to transition from at-large to district-based elections to comply with the CVRA and states their belief that the City’s at-large system dilutes minority voting strength potentially violating the CVRA.

The 8.23.24 Letter requested that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intent to transition to district-based elections within 45 days and states that the City then has 90 days to hold public hearings and adopt an ordinance establishing districts.

The 8.23.24 Letter states that the transition would align Pacific Grove with positive statewide trends including neighboring cities like Soledad, Gonzales, Greenfield and Monterey.

Finally, the 8.23.24 Letter urges Pacific Grove to avoid potential litigation, which has proven costly for municipalities and that transitioning voluntarily allows the City to maintain control over the districting process and engage the community meaningfully.

September 4, 2024: There was a City Council meeting in which there was a discussion regarding the

8.23.24 LULAC Letter. After a discussion at the City Council meeting regarding the CVRA, and receipt of public comment, the City Council voted to direct the City Manager to return to the City Council with a Resolution of Intent to Transition from At-Large Elections to By-District Elections and to retain a demographer to assist in that transition process.

B. California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”)
As noted, the CVRA became effective on January 1, 2003 and is set forth in Elections Code §§ 14025 - 14032. (Attachment 2.) The CVRA applies only to at-large electoral systems. The CVRA alters established standards of proof and defenses that exist under the federal Voting Rights Act, making it easier for plaintiffs to challenge the electoral system of any city or other jurisdiction that does not elect its governing board by-district. For example, under the CVRA, a plaintiff is not required to prove that, by changing to districts, there will be a least one district which has a majority of minority voters.

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

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

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

PGCC 10-2-24

There are seven cities in the County of Monterey with District-Based Elections:

1. Gonzales

2. Greenfield

3. King City

4. Marina

5. Monterey

6. Salinas

7. Soledad
C. Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica On September 20, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its modified ruling in the case of Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal. 5th 292 (2023) (see Attachment 6), that plaintiffs must also prove that the combination of at-large voting and voting patterns reflecting racial polarization results in the dilution of the ability of protected class voters to elect chosen candidate or influence the outcome of elections. In other words, plaintiffs must prove that they would have the opportunity to elect chosen candidates in a legal alternative electoral system such as a by-district system or alternatives that may be available in charter cities (e.g., cumulative voting; ranked choice voting; limited voting, etc.).

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

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

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

The League of California Cities provided a summary of the Santa Monica on August 30, 2023 (Attachment 7).

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

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

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

E. Attorneys’ Fees
As mentioned above, the CVRA contains an attorneys’ fee-shifting provision that operates in only one direction, in favor of plaintiffs. The CVRA mandates that the defendant shall pay the reasonable PGCC 10-2-24

attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses of plaintiffs who prevail in a CVRA lawsuit. Plaintiffs can also prevail through a settlement which results in a change to by-district election without a court order.

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

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

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

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

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

F. City Charter
Pacific Grove’s Charter provides that, “The Mayor and the members of the Council shall be elected from the City at large.” (Charter of the City of Pacific Grove, Art. 6.) Ordinarily, this provision could be changed only with approval of the majority of the voters of the City.

Some cities, including charter cities have used a state law, Government Code Section 34886, to transition to by-district elections without first placing the issue of the change on the ballot. Section 34886 provides:

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

PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

The City of Santa Rosa’s charter also specified at-large elections for the city council. The City adopted an Ordinance in 2018 and a Charter amendment to provide for district elections was approved by the voters on November 8, 2022.

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

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

G. Process for Transitioning from At-Large Elections to By-District Elections The process of transitioning from at-large elections to by-district elections is controlled by California Elections Code § 10010 (Attachment 8), which specifically applies to charter cities.

Elections Code § 10010 provides for the following process for transition from at large elections to district elections:

1. A Resolution of Intent to Transition from At-Large Elections to By-district Elections; Request to Retain Demographer to Assist City with drawing of district maps

2. First Public Hearing on composition of possible districts before draft maps are drawn

3. Second Public Hearing no more than 30 days after First Public Hearing on composition of possible districts before draft maps are drawn

4. Publication of Draft Maps and Election Sequence – at least 7 days prior to public hearing on maps

5. First Public Hearing on Draft Maps

6. Second Public Hearing on Draft Maps no more than 45 days after First Public Hearing on Draft Maps: Consider Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance to transition from at-large elections to by-district elections.

7. Consider Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance to transition from at-large elections to by-district elections; public hearing required in connection with adoption of Ordinance; Ordinance becomes effective 30 days after adoption.

H. Timing
Elections Code Section 10010 includes the so-called “safe harbor” language if the City adopts a PGCC 10-2-24

Resolution of Intent to Transition from at large Elections to by-district Elections within 45 days of the receipt of the LULAC Letter. 45 days from August 23, 2024 is October 7, 2024. There is a City Council meeting on October 2, 2024 which would be last regular City Council meeting before October 7, 2024.

If the City adopts a Resolution of Intent on October 2, 2024, then 90 days thereafter is January 1, 2025 as the deadline to complete the process of the public hearings described in Section 10010 (a) and adoption of an ordinance approving a district map.

The January 1, 2025 deadline for the expiration of the “safe harbor” provisions of Section 10010 can be extended by up to 90 days upon agreement with LULAC which would extend the safe harbor to complete the transition process to March 31, 2025 if the City adopts a Resolution of Intent on October 2, 2024.

If the January 1, 2025 deadline were to remain, then the multiple hearings required by Section 10010 would be occurring in November and December 2024 during the holiday season. The purpose of the 90 days extension as described in Section 10010 is to “provide additional time to conduct public outreach, encourage public participation, and receive public input.” Request has been made to LULAC for an agreement to extend the 90 day safe harbor period to March 31, 2025 if the City adopts a Resolution of Intent before October 7, 2024. At this time, the City has not yet received a response from LULAC to this request.

I. Impact of Ballot Measure Z – Six Councilmembers To Four Councilmembers Ballot measure Z set for the November 5, 2024 Election, if approved, would reduce the number of Councilmembers from six to four.

If the ballot measure is not approved, and the City adopts a Resolution of Intent to Transition to districts, then there would be a need adopt a district map for six districts.

If the ballot measure is approved, and the City adopts a Resolution of Intent to Transition to districts, then there would be a need adopt a district map for four districts.

Since the City does not know at this time whether there will be a need to create six districts of four districts in light of the pending Measure Z, the proposed Resolution of Intent has been drafted to address both possibilities, namely what will happen if Measure Z is not approved by the voters and what will happen if Measure Z is approved. Recitals P to Q of the proposed Resolution read as follows:

1. Recital P: On the ballot for the November 5, 2024 General Election is City Measure Z which will ask the voters this question (“Measure Z”):

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?

2. Recital Q: If Measure Z is not approved by a majority of the voters on November 5, 2024, then the City should create six districts with the first district elections held in November 2026.

3. Recital R: If Measure Z is approved by a majority of the voters on November 5, 2024, then:

PGCC 10-2-24

(1) In the November 2026 General Election, there will be three Councilmembers elected with two Councilmembers serving a four year term which shall expire in December 2030 and one Councilmember serving a two year term which shall expire in December 2028. (2) In the November 2028 General Election, there will be two Councilmembers elected to a four year term which shall expire in December 2032 who will join with the two Councilmembers elected to a four year term in the November 2026 General Election resulting in a City Council comprised of four City Councilmembers and a directly-elected Mayor.
(3) If Measure Z is approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, then in order to avoid the confusing, time consuming and costly process of creating six districts for the November 2026 election and thereafter creating four districts for the November 2028 election, the City should create four districts in 2025 and the first district elections will be held in the November 2028 General Election.

Further, in order to plan for the circumstance that Measure Z may be approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, Section 2 of the Resolution of Intent reads as follows:

2. The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an ordinance, as authorized by Government Code Section 34886 and consistent with Elections Code Section 10010, to transition to a district-based election system for use in the City’s General Municipal Election for City Council members as follows:
(a) If Measure Z is not approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, then the City will create six districts with the first district elections for three City Council seats to be held in the November 2026 General Election or
(b) If Measure Z is approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, then the City will create four districts with the first district elections for two City Council seats to be held in the November 2028 General Election.

J. Costs
If the City adopts a Resolution of Intent before October 7, 2024 and if the City completes the transition to district either 90 days thereafter, or 180 days thereafter if LULAC approves a 90 day extension of the safe harbor provisions, then there is a cap under Elections Code Section 10010 “safe harbor” provisions on the recovery for the “cost of the work project generated to support the notice.” There must be a demand in writing for those costs with financial documentation. The costs can include attorneys’ fees and demographer fees and related costs. The cap was $30,000, but that has increased over the years with CPI and that cap is now about $37,500.00. If the City does not meet the deadlines in the CVRA, then there is no cap on the amount of costs that can be recovered in any litigation which might be filed against the City.

K. Conclusion
Based upon the direction of the City Council at its meeting on September 4, 2024, the recommended actions are set forth in this Agenda Report and include:

1. Motion to adopt Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pacific Grove Declaring Its Intent To Initiate Procedures For A Transition From At-Large To District-Based Council Member Elections in the form of Attachment 1
PGCC 10-2-24

2. Motion to Provide Direction to City Manager develop a tentative timeline for conducting public hearings, formulating proposed district maps scenarios and election sequencing, and present a draft ordinance to the city council for decision.

3. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement with LULAC to extend the date to complete the transition to district-based elections within the safe harbor provisions of Elections Code Section 10010 to March 31, 2025 provided that LULAC agrees to such an extension.

4. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a First Amendment to City of Pacific Grove Professional Services Agreement with National Demographic Corporation for Further Demographer Services in an amount not to exceed $49,000 (Attachment 9).

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

OPTIONS
Provide alternative action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

If the Council adopts a Resolution of Intent to Transition from At-Large Elections to District Elections, then the financial impact will include staff time, costs for a demographer to assist with the transition and preparation of draft district maps in an amount not to exceed $49,000 and potentially costs payable to LULAC not to exceed $37,500.00.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 - Resolution of Intent
2 - CVRA Elections Code Sections 14025 - 14032
3 - LULAC Letter of August 25, 2022
4 - Agenda Report dated March 6, 2024 and Demographic Report by NDC 5 - LULAC Letter of August 23, 2024
6 - Pico Neighborhood v. Santa Monica
7 - League of California Cities paper dated August 30, 2023 8 - California Elections Code § 10010
9 - 1st Amdt to NCD Contract
PGCC 10-2-24

Reso. No. ______

RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DECLARING

ITS INTENT TO INITIATE PROCEDURES FOR A TRANSITION FROM AT-LARGE TO

DISTRICT-BASED COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTIONS PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE § 10010 AND GOVERNMENT CODE § 34886, DIRECTING CITY MANAGER DEVELOP A

TENTATIVE TIMELINE FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS, FORMULATING

PROPOSED DISTRICT MAPS SCENARIOS AND ELECTION SEQUENCING, AND

PRESENTING A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DECISION

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter of the City of Pacific Grove, members of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) are currently elected in at-large elections, that is, each member is elected in a city-wide vote.

B. On August 23, 2024, the City received a certified letter (“Letter”) from the District 12 Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”). The Letter formally requests the City to transition from at-large to district-based elections to comply with the CVRA and states their belief that the City’s at-large system dilutes minority voting strength potentially violating the CVRA and the Letter urges the City to avoid potential litigation, which has proven costly for municipalities and that transitioning voluntarily allows the City to maintain control over the districting process and engage the community meaningfully.

C. A violation of the CVRA may be established if it is shown that racially polarized voting has combined with an at-large voting system to impair the ability of a protected class of voters to elect candidates of its choice or to influence the outcome of an election (Elections. Code § 14027).

D. Under the CVRA, “racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference between the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate [Elections Code § 14026(e)] E. The CVRA applies only to at-large electoral systems and thus favors district-based electoral systems, as defined (Elections Code § 14026(b)), which are not subject to attack under the CVRA, even if there is racially polarized voting in the districts.

F. The Letter received by the City did not include an assertion that racially polarized voting occurred in the City or any evidence to support such a claim, nor, at this time, is the City itself aware of any such evidence.

G. The City denies that its election system violates the CVRA or any other provision of law and asserts that City’s election system is legal in all respects.

H. The City can transition to district-based elections even if there is no violation of the CVRA and the City Council has determined that the public interest is better served by initiating a PGCC 10-2-24

Reso. No. ______

process for transition to a district-based election system and thereby avoiding the costs associated with defending a lawsuit under the CVRA at some time in the future.

I. The California Legislature in Elections Code § 10010 has provide a method whereby a jurisdiction can expeditiously transition to a district-based election system and thereby protect itself against the high cost of litigation under the CVRA.

J. California Government Code § 34886 provides additional protection by authorizing the legislative body of a city, under certain circumstances and without a vote, to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an at-large system to a district-based system in which either (a) each council member is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides, or (b) all council members except the mayor are elected by district and the mayor is elected by a city-wide vote.

K. The CVRA, Elections Code § 10010, and Government Code § 34886 are General Laws of the State of California and Article 8 of the Charter of the City of Pacific Grove requires the City’s General municipal elections to be held pursuant to the provisions of the General Laws of the State of California.

L. The of the purposes of the CVRA and Elections Code § 10010 is to encourage the election of the governing body of a jurisdiction on a by-district basis, such that the voters of each district elect one of the district’s own residents to be its representative on the governing body, thus protecting the jurisdiction from CVRA litigation.

M. Another purpose of California Elections Code § 10010 is to prohibit CVRA litigation and place a cap on the recovery of attorneys’ fees associated with a CVRA claim, if, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a claim under the CVRA by certified letter, the City adopts a resolution stating its intent to transition to district-based elections, and, within ninety (90) days thereafter (or as otherwise stipulated by the parties), the City adopts an ordinance transitioning to a districtbased election system consistent with the intent and purpose of the California Voting Rights Act.

N. Prior to the City Council’s consideration of an ordinance to establish district boundaries for a district-based electoral system, California Elections Code § 10010 requires all of the following:

1. Prior to drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City shall hold at least two (2) public hearings over a period of no more than thirty (30) days, at which the public will be invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts.

2. After all draft maps are drawn, City shall publish and make available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections shall also be published.

3. The City Council shall also hold at least two (2) additional hearings over a period of no more than forty-five (45) days, at which the public shall be invited to PGCC 10-2-24

Reso. No. ______

provide input regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable.

4. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven (7) days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven (7) days before being adopted.

O. The City will retain an experienced qualified demographer to assist the City in the development of a proposal for a district-based electoral system.

P. On the ballot for the November 5, 2024 General Election is City Measure Z which will ask the voters this question (“Measure Z”):

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? Q. If Measure Z is not approved by a majority of the voters on November 5, 2024, then the City should create six districts with the first district elections held in November 2026.

R. If Measure Z is approved by a majority of the voters on November 5, 2024, then:

1. In the November 2026 General Election, there will be three Councilmembers elected with two Councilmembers serving a four year term which shall expire in December 2030 and one Councilmember serving a two year term which shall expire in December 2028.

2. In the November 2028 General Election, there will be two Councilmembers elected to a four year term which shall expire in December 2032 who will join with the two Councilmembers elected to a four year term in the November 2026 General Election resulting in a City Council comprised of four City Councilmembers and a directly-elected Mayor.

3. If Measure Z is approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, then in order to avoid the confusing, time consuming and costly process of creating six districts for the November 2026 election and thereafter creating four districts for the November 2028 election, the City should create four districts in 2025 and the first district elections will be held in the November 2028 General Election.

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

1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an ordinance, as authorized by Government Code Section 34886 and consistent with Elections Code Section PGCC 10-2-24

Reso. No. ______

10010, to transition to a district-based election system for use in the City’s General Municipal Election for City Council members as follows:
(a) If Measure Z is not approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, then the City will create six districts with the first district elections for three City Council seats to be held in the November 2026 General Election or
(b) If Measure Z is approved by the voters on November 5, 2024, then the City will create four districts with the first district elections for two City Council seats to be held in the November 2028 General Election.

3. The City Council directs the City Manager to work with a qualified demographer and other consultants as needed, to formulate, for review by the public and the City Council, one or more electoral district scenarios, each fully consistent with the intent and purpose of the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act, and other relevant laws.

4. Working with the qualified demographer and other consultants as needed, the City Manager is directed to publicize and post information regarding the proposed transition to a district-based election system, including relevant maps, notices, agendas and other information and to establish a means of communication to receive comments and answer questions from the public.

5. The City Council intends to complete the transition to district-based elections by January 1, 2025, but in no event later than March 31, 2025, by conducting public hearings pursuant to Elections Code § 10010 to solicit and receive public input and testimony on proposed district-based electoral map scenarios and for the City Council’s evaluation, possible refinement and ultimate adoption by ordinance of a district-based election system for election of City Council members.

6. The City Manager is directed to develop an initial tentative timeline for consideration of the City Council, which timeline may be adjusted by the City Manager as he deems necessary or appropriate during the districting process, including pursuant to Elections Code § 10010(e)(3)(C).

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 2nd day of October, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Sandra Kandell, City Clerk Bill Peake, Mayor
PGCC 10-2-24

Reso. No. ______

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Brian Pierik, City Attorney
PGCC 10-2-24

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

PGCC 10-2-24

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

PGCC 10-2-24

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

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

Agenda No. 8 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE:July 17, 2024
SUBJECT: City of Pacific Grove Informational Report on Demographics CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to:

1. Receive and file the City of Pacific Grove informational report on demographics prepared by National Demographic Corporation.

2. Direct City Manager to take an alternative action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
On March 6, 2024, the City Council discussed the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a demographer to study the demographics of the City. National Demographic Corporation (NDC) was selected to perform the demographic work requested in the RFP. Attached is the City of Pacific Grove Report on Demographics prepared by NDC. This report provides a demographic overview of the City's residents as well as a series of tables that depict the economic characteristics by race/ethnicity.

The Report by NDC is being submitted to you for your information.

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

OPTIONS
Receive and file the information report on City of Pacific Grove demographics prepared by NDC.

Alternatively, the Council may provide an alternate direction to the City Manager regarding this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact of receiving the informational report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA:Not Applicable.

Attachments
NDC Demographic Report
8/23/24, 7:37 PM Print Agenda Report
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=5047&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=72243 1/2 PGCC 10-2-24

City of Pacific Grove June 11, 2024
Report on Demographics
Phone: (818) 254-1221 P.O. Box 5271 [email protected] FAX (818) 254-1221 Glendale, CA 91221 www.NDCresearch.com

1. Demographic Overview
The California adjustment to the 2020 Census counted 15,125 residents of Pacific Grove.

Total Population
Total Percent
Non-Hispanic White 10,669 71%
Latino/Hispanic 2,165 14%
Black/African-American 276 2%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,344 11%
City Total 15,125
In Voting Rights-related litigation (both California and Federal), the most significant demographic data are the Citizen Voting Age Population data, as the courts view that data as the best available estimate of the population eligible to vote.

Citizen Voting Age Population
Total Percent
Non-Hispanic White 9,455 80%
Latino/Hispanic 1,249 11%
Black/African-American 198 2%
Asian/Pacific Islander 830 7%
City Total 11,915
The current Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is from the latest Special Tabulation of the American Community Survey (2018-2022). The Census Bureau releases new updates every year.

Estimates of voting and turnout can also be made using surname data provided by the California Secretary of State’s California Statewide Database. Non-Hispanic White and Black/AfricanAmerican estimates can then be derived by applying their share of CVAP to the remaining voters (who were not identified as Latino/Hispanic or Asian-American based on their surnames). The following show the percentage of all registered voters and the percentage of voters casting ballots who belong to each racial or ethnic group listed:

Nov. 2022
Registration Nov. 2022 Turnout Nov. 2020 Turnout
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Non-Hispanic White 8,744 83% 6,216 85% 8,121 84%
Latino/Hispanic 940 9% 548 7% 730 8%
Black/African-American 353 3% 250 3% 113 1%
Asian/Filipino 434 4% 268 4% 354 4%
City Total 10,509 7,310 9,615
PGCC 10-2-24

National Demographics Corporation

The same data can be used to calculate the turnout rates within each racial or ethnic group:

Nov. 2022 Nov. 2020
Non-Hispanic White 71% 90%
Latino/Hispanic 58% 84%
Black/African-American 71% 90%
Asian/Filipino 62% 83%
City Total 70% 89%

2. Economic Characteristics by Race/Ethnicity
Median
Income
Percent
below
poverty
Non-Hispanic White $107,150 6.5%
Latino/Hispanic $91,122 5.2%
Black/African-American $67,083 12.9%
Asian/Pacific Islander $118,125 6.9%
City Total $102,553 7.1%
Housing Characteristics by Race/Ethnicity
Owners Renters
Non-Hispanic White 52% 48%
Latino/Hispanic 41% 59%
Black/African-American 0% 100%
Asian/Pacific Islander 42% 58%
City Total 49% 51%
Education Attainment Race/Ethnicity
High School
Graduates
College
Graduates
Non-Hispanic White 97% 61%
Latino/Hispanic 87% 35%
Black/African-American 97% 30%
Asian/Pacific Islander 89% 61%
City Total 96% 57%
Immigration & English Fluency by Race/Ethnicity
PGCC 10-2-24

National Demographics Corporation

Foreign
Born Naturalized
Speak English
less than Very
Well
Non-Hispanic White 8% 75% 1%
Latino/Hispanic 18% 69% 6%
Black/African-American 7% 100% 0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 57% 61% 17%
City Total 13% 68% 3%

3. Fair Maps Act criteria and process requirements for drawing City Council election districts
Criteria
The Fair Maps Act of 2019 and Fair Maps Act of 2023 modified the criteria required for cities drawing or adjusting their council districts (Elections Code section 21130(a-e)). The criteria, in order of priority, are the following:
(1) Equal population using the latest Census as adjusted for the incarcerated population (21130(a))
(2) Boundaries consistent with the Federal Voting Rights Act (21130(b)). As part of this process, cities are required to produce a report to “determine whether it is possible to create an election district or districts in which a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district” (21130(b)(1)).

Furthermore, if a city “conducts an analysis to determine wither ‘racially polarized voting’ exists,” a summary must be published before adopting election district boundaries or within seven days, whichever occurs first (21130(b)(2)).
(3) Geographic contiguity (21130(c)(1)
(4) Communities of interest and neighborhoods, as defined as “population that shares common social or economic interests and should be included within a single election district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” This may include shared policy concerns, characteristics of the community, or history, but not “relationships with political parties, incumbents or political candidates.” (21130(c)(2))
(5) Following natural and artificial boundaries that are “easily identifiable and understandable by residents” (21130(c)(3)).
(6) Compactness, as defined as not bypassing nearby populations in favor of more distant populations (21130(c)(4).

Finally, jurisdictions are prohibited from adopting districts “for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party” (21130(d)).

PGCC 10-2-24

National Demographics Corporation

These criteria must be applied in that order of priority, and no other criteria may be prioritized over these criteria (21130(e)). These criteria apply to both Charter and General Law cities (21120), unless it is a charter city where the “city’s charter provides two or more mandatory traditional redistricting criteria other than the requirement that districts be equal in population” (21130(g)).

Process
In short, the process requires, at a minimum, the following:

1. Jurisdiction adopts a “Resolution of Intent” declaring its decision to move to by-district elections and laying out a tentative schedule for the process.

2. Jurisdiction issues report evaluating whether it is possible to draw one or more districts where a protected class (as defined in the Federal Voting Rights Act) is able to constitute a majority of the electorate.
 If the districting body conducted a racially polarized voting analysis, that report must also be released at this time.

3. Jurisdiction holds two public hearings to gather public input on communities of interest (and to educate the public on the process) – no draft maps are included at this stage. These two hearings must be within 30 calendar days of each other.

4. Jurisdiction draws and posts draft map(s) and proposed election sequence for those maps.

5. Jurisdiction holds two public hearings on the draft maps “prior to the public hearing at which the maps are adopted”. These two hearings must be within 45 calendar days of each other.

The following are the two official statutes governing the steps in the districting process:

Elections Code 21130 (b):

The districting body shall adopt election district boundaries that comply with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.).
(1) Consistent with the districting body’s existing obligations under the federal Voting Rights Act, the districting body shall determine whether it is possible to create an election district or districts in which a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, as set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), and as interpreted in case law regarding enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act with respect to redistricting. The districting body shall publish on its redistricting web page, at a minimum, the results of its analysis within seven days of completing the analysis or prior to adopting election district boundaries, whichever occurs first. (2) If the districting body, consistent with its existing obligations under the federal Voting Rights Act, conducts an analysis to determine whether “racially polarized voting,” as defined in case law regarding enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act, exists in the local jurisdiction, the districting body shall publish on its redistricting web page, at a minimum, a PGCC 10-2-24

National Demographics Corporation

summary of its analysis and findings within seven days of completing the analysis or prior to adopting election district boundaries, whichever occurs first.

Elections Code 10010:
(a) A political subdivision that changes from an at-large method of election to a districtbased election, or that establishes district-based elections, shall do all of the following before a public hearing at which the governing body of the political subdivision votes to approve or defeat an ordinance establishing district-based elections:
(1) Before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the political subdivision shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. Before these hearings, the political subdivision may conduct outreach to the public, including to non-English-speaking communities, to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation. (2) After all draft maps are drawn, the political subdivision shall publish and make available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the governing body of the political subdivision will be elected in their districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections. The political subdivision shall also hold at least two additional hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven days before being adopted.
(b) In determining the final sequence of the district elections conducted in a political subdivision in which members of the governing body will be elected at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the governing body shall give special consideration to the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, and it shall take into account the preferences expressed by members of the districts.

PGCC 10-2-24

PGCC 10-2-24

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 15 Cal.5th 292
Supreme Court of California.

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

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant and
Appellant.

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

Court of Appeal reversed; remanded.

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

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

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

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

Code §§ 14026(a, c), 14027, 14028(e).
[3] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

Code §§ 14026(a, c, e), 14027, 14028(a).
[8] Statutes Context
A court construing a statute does not view a
fragment in isolation, but considers the statute as
PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C.A. §
10301.
[14] Municipal Corporations Nature and
constitution of body in general
To prevail on vote-dilution challenge under
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) to at-large
method of nonpartisan elections for city council,
challengers, after establishing existence of
racially polarized voting, were not required to
prove that minority group of Latino voters would
constitute a majority, or near majority, of
hypothetical single-member district, where
winning candidates often earned only plurality of
vote; accordingly, what was required to establish
dilution of Latino voters' ability to elect
candidates of their choice was proof that, under
some lawful alternative electoral system, Latino
voters would have potential, on their own or with
help of crossover voters, to elect their preferred
candidate, and lawful alternative electoral
systems could include, but were not limited to,
single-member district elections. Cal. Elec. Code
§§ 14026(a, c, e), 14027, 14028(a).
[15] Election Law Compactness and cohesiveness
of minority group
To establish, under the California Voting Rights
Act (CVRA), that an at-large voting system for
nonpartisan elections dilutes a minority group's
ability to elect its preferred candidate, a plaintiff
PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shenkman & Hughes, Kevin I. Shenkman, Mary R. Hughes,
Los Angeles, Andrea A. Alarcon; Law Office of Robert
Rubin, Robert Rubin, San Francisco; Goldstein, Borgen,
PGCC 10-2-24

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Dardarian & Ho, Morris J. Baller, Laura L. Ho, Anne P.

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

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

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

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

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

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger, Douglas E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Bosworth and L. Stevan Leonard as Amicus Curiae.

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

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

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

In such circumstances, the voting rules may effectively decide whether a group of voters can have a voice in the myriad decisions made by local representatives. With a seat at the table, the voters' representative can have a say in the topics and terms of the debate on the many crucial decisions that local governments make. Without a seat, though, the PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

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

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

We conclude the Court of Appeal misconstrued the CVRA.

To prevail on a CVRA **60 claim, a plaintiff who has
established the existence of racially polarized voting in an atlarge system need not prove that the protected class would constitute a majority — or, as the City proposes, a near PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trial court further found that the City's at-large voting system unlawfully diluted the electoral strength of its Latino residents within the meaning of the CVRA, in that several alternative voting systems — e.g., district-based elections, cumulative voting, limited voting, and ranked choice voting — would better enable Latino voters “to elect candidates of PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

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

PGCC 10-2-24

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 A. The VRA and the CVRA, Compared

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

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

2.) Four stand out in this proceeding. First, unlike the VRA, the CVRA applies only to “[a]n at-large method of election” (Elec. Code, § 14027) for nonpartisan offices (id., § 14026, subds. (a), (c); see Cal. Const., art. II, § 6). Second, the CVRA addresses not only impairments to a protected class's “ability ... to elect candidates of its choice” (Elec. Code, § 14027; cf. 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b) [“opportunity ... to elect representatives of their choice”]), but also the class's “ability to influence the outcome of an election” (Elec. Code, § 14027, italics added). Third, the CVRA made it easier to challenge at-large electoral systems by explicitly rejecting the first Gingles *313 precondition: “The fact that
members of a protected class are not geographically compact or concentrated may not preclude a finding of racially
polarized voting, or a violation of Section 14027 and this section, but may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy.” (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (c).) Fourth, the CVRA includes its own list of potentially probative factors, many of which overlap with the Senate factors above, but cautions that they are “not necessary factors to establish a violation” of the CVRA. (Elec. Code, § 14028, subd. (e).)4
PGCC 10-2-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858, 874,
280 Cal.Rptr.3d 783, 489 P.3d 1166 [concluding that the Legislature intended to adopt the “ ‘widely understood’ ” PGCC 10-2-24