Pacific Grove Council reviews dozens of draft maps in third public hearing on district boundaries

Pacific Grove City Council held its third public hearing on proposed election district boundaries on Feb. 5, reviewing draft maps submitted by residents and hearing feedback from a demographic consultant and multiple public speakers. The hearing covered technical mapping constraints, neighborhood and community-of-interest concerns, and next steps in the redistricting schedule.

The consultant told the council the city must draw six single-member districts using 2020 U.S. Census population data, with a target of 2,520 residents per district and an allowable population variance generally kept well under the 10% threshold the courts permit. He said maps must be contiguous, avoid racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act, minimize division of neighborhoods and communities of interest where possible, and not be designed to favor or discriminate against incumbents or political parties under state law. The consultant also explained some unusual census blocks in Pacific Grove — notably a large block around Arnett Park that creates a “donut” shape — limit how compact some districts can be.

Why it matters: the council is implementing a change from at-large to single-member seats that will determine which residents vote in each district and which neighborhoods share representation. Council members and residents said the configuration of districts will affect local priorities for coastal policy, downtown business districts and neighborhood issues such as park maintenance and public safety.

Public comment emphasized several recurring themes. Multiple speakers urged keeping George Washington Park whole within a single district so the park’s users and adjacent neighborhoods have one clear representative. Other commenters recommended using Cynics (Canyon) as a dividing line, clustering coastal neighborhoods to reduce the number of districts subject to the Local Coastal Program's special rules, and avoiding maps that split small, long-established neighborhoods. Several speakers asked the council to consider renters as a community of interest; residents asked the city to overlay socioeconomic indicators (owner vs. renter, transit needs, walkability) onto candidate maps in the next round.

Council discussion mixed legal and neighborhood concerns. Several council members praised the breadth of public submissions and noted the town’s small size makes many interests shared across districts. Some members said they preferred maps that split coastal responsibilities among multiple councilmembers so the shoreline receives more than one advocate; others preferred keeping certain neighborhood blocks, especially those adjacent to George Washington Park, with the park. Councilmembers mentioned specific draft plans they wanted staff to bring back for focused review; those cited most often in discussion included maps 101, 108, 109, 116, 118 and 119. A member asked the demographer to return with a set of “focus maps” annotated with street-level boundaries and optional overlays (school trustee lines, renter/owner distribution, walkability/transportation indicators) to help the public and council compare tradeoffs.

Process and next steps: the consultant noted a public deadline of Feb. 24 to submit additional draft maps; the council scheduled a follow-up public hearing on March 5 with the goal of selecting a preferred map for introduction of an ordinance and a first reading thereafter, with a possible adoption hearing March 19. City staff and the demographer said they will prepare a smaller set of focus maps with street names, demographic overlays, and clearer sequencing labels for council and public review. The city attorney advised against publishing incumbents’ residential addresses on the maps because residency information could imply incumbency considerations that the law says should not guide the drawing process.

Speakers included the city manager and demographer/consultant, multiple council members who commented during deliberations, and a mix of residents who spoke at the meeting or on Zoom. The council did not adopt a final map at the Feb. 5 hearing; it closed the hearing after taking direction to return with annotated focus maps and additional overlays for the March session.