CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, September 6, 2023, 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.
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
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://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
888 788 0099 US (Toll-free)
877 853 5247 US (Toll-free)
669 900 9128
669 219 2599
Webinar ID: 209 579 290#
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.
Help Line 831-648-3128
MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
The public may also view the meeting on the Peninsula Channel 25.
AGENDA
PGCC 9-6-2023
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Beck
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Hispanic Heritage Month PAGE 7 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
Recommended Action: Receive proclamation for Hispanic Heritage Month.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Service Awards: Audrey Cray, 5 Years and Saul Rodriguez, 5 Years PAGE 9 Reference: Tori Hannah, City Manager Pro Tem
Recommended Action: Receive presentations.
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
PGCC 9-6-2023
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 August 16, 2023 Closed Session and Regular Meetings PAGE 12 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the August 30, 2023 Special Meeting PAGE 17 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 Posting Contracts and Agreements Online PAGE 21 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution posting contracts and agreements online.
2. Other action as directed by City Council related to this subject.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Resolution Approving Interim City Manager Job Description PAGE 26 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving Interim City Manager Job Description or alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
7. ORDINANCES
PGCC 9-6-2023
7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. 2023 Monarch Sanctuary Annual Management Plan PAGE 33 Reference: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager Recommended Action: Receive report.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15307, Class 7, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Appointment to Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion PAGE 91 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointment of Natalie Marchenko-Fryberger to Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion ending January 31, 2026.
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 A. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Meeting Minutes: June 12 and July, 2023 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator PAGE 100 Recommended Action: Receive minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Recreation Board Minutes: January 13, January 27, February 24, and March 24, 2023 Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager PAGE 106
Recommended Action: Receive the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
PGCC 9-6-2023
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. Consider an Appeal of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0318, Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project - Phase 9 - Coastal Zone Segments - multiple locations including APN 007-041-004 and Adoption of Negative Declaration of Project PAGE 118 Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal, adopt a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, and approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0318), subject to the findings and conditions of approval.
CEQA: Initial Study, Negative Declaration
B. Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to Include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore PAGE 286
Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:
1. Request City Attorney to read title of ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold for first reading an Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to include Salary for City Manager Pro Tempore;
3. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney;
4. 5. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. George Washington Park Forest Management Plan - 2022 FMP & Approach Forward Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager PAGE 290 Recommended Action:
Receive the 2022 George Washington Park Forest Management Plan (FMP) and provide direction.
1. Direct staff to proceed with developing a multi-seasonal biological assessment for all zones of the park (1-4)
2. Authorize maintenance activities consistent with the approved 1999 GWP Master Plan until a new plan is developed and approved.
3. 4. 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 9-6-2023
B. Planning Commission Recommendations for the Cannabis Regulatory Draft Ordinances Reference: Erica Vega, Assistant City Attorney
Recommended Action: PAGE 480
Consider and accept Planning Commission recommendations for the draft Cannabis Zoning Ordinance for Title 23 and the draft Cannabis Licensing Ordinance for Title 11.
1. Recommend staff bring final ordinances back to City Council for first read/introduction of ordinance.
2. 3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the General Employees Association (GEA) PAGE 538
Reference: Katy Suttorp, Attorney, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Tori Hannah, City Manager Pro Tempore
Recommended Action: Approve a resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the General Employees Association to cover the period of July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2026.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
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 9-6-2023
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: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: Hispanic Heritage Month
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive proclamation for Hispanic Heritage Month.
Attachments
Proclamation
PGCC 9-6-2023
Mayor’s Proclamation
HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
WHEREAS, each year, the federal, state, and local governments observe Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15 by recognizing and celebrating the histories, cultures, and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean and Central and South America; and
WHEREAS, September 15th is significant as a starting date for Latino Heritage month because it is the anniversary of independence for the Latin American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence on September 16th and September 18th respectively, and Columbus Day or Dia de La Raza, which is October 12th, falls within this 30-day period; and WHEREAS, Hispanics and Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the State of California and at
18.5% of the United States population, make up the largest ethnic or race minority group in America; and
WHEREAS, Hispanics and Latinos have and continue to serve as Civil Rights leaders, educators, public servants, business owners, activists, artists, colleagues, friends, and much more in our community and across the world; and their values—service to others, non-violence, acceptance of all people, respect for life and the environment, and celebrating community—are also America’s values; and
WHEREAS, Hispanics and Latinos continue to enrich our Nation’s character, shape our common future, and affirm the narrative of American unity and progress; and WHEREAS, during National Hispanic Heritage Month, we celebrate Hispanic culture, honor the invaluable ways Hispanics contribute to our common goals, and work toward a stronger, more inclusive, more prosperous society for all; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force recommends proclamation of Hispanic Heritage Month each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bill Peake, Mayor of Pacific Grove, California, do hereby proclaim September 15, 2023 through October 15, 2023 “HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH” and encourage all citizens to recognize the significance of Hispanic Heritage and history in our nation and City.
________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
PGCC 9-6-2023
Agenda No. 2 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, City Manager Pro Tem
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Service Awards: Audrey Cray, 5 Years and Saul Rodriguez, 5 Years CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentations.
Attachments
Service Awards
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
Agenda No. 5 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Minutes of the August 16, 2023 Closed Session and Regular Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 8-16-23
PGCC 9-6-2023
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 16, 2023, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, and McDonnell. Absent: Councilmember Poduri.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, and McDonnell.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Poduri.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Public comment received from George Fuerst.
1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Tori Hannah, City Manager Pro Tem, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, City Attorney's Office Employees: Management Employees Association and General Employees Association DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, August 16, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pro Tem Smith led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to approve the agenda.
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.
2. PRESENTATIONS
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Tori Hannah, City Manager Pro Tem, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, City Attorney's Office
Employees: Management Employees Association and General Employees Association City Attorney Brian Pierik had nothing to report.
B. Council and staff made general announcements.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Jose Luis Barajas, Chandler Rowland, Kevin DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
3 Hanley, Denica De Foy, Tony Ciani, Nina Beety, Colleen Ingram, Wendi Giles, Marsha, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Vince Tuminello, Mike Gibbs, Dan Miller, Carol Marquart.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council voted to approve the Consent Agenda.
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.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the August 2, 2023 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. Fourth Quarter Treasurer’s Quarterly Report – Fiscal Year 2022-23 Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Fourth Quarter 22/23 Workers' Compensation Report
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. July 2023 Check Register
Action: Received the Check Register.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. July 2023 Core Revenue Report
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
4 10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Architectural Review Board Minutes: July 11, 2023
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Amendment
Public comment received from Mike Gibbs, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Marsha, and Lisa Ciani.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, the Council voted to hold second reading and adopt Ordinance 23-011 amending Municipal Code Section 23.80 Accessory Dwelling Units approving the proposed zoning text amendment.
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.
CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single or Multi Family Residential Zone
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 7:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
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: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Minutes of the August 30, 2023 Special Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 8-30-23
PGCC 9-6-2023
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, August 30, 2023, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
APPEARING VIA ZOOM:
Councilmember Joe Amelio
75 Curley Drive
Long Beach, NY 11561
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Appearing by Zoom: Councilmember Amelio.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Poduri led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Due to the noticing of a special meeting, Mayor Peake recommended removal of the pledge of allegiance and general public comment items.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted to approve the agenda as modified.
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.
2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
2 REGULAR AGENDA
3. NEW BUSINESS
A. Interim City Manager Job Description
No public comment received.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution establishing an Interim City Manager Job Description.
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.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. City Manager Recruitment Services
Public comment received from Cathy Wooten.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to authorize an agreement with Bob Murray and Associates for Interim and City Manager recruitment services for an amount not to exceed $42,000 beginning September 1, 2023, and terminating June 30, 2024.
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.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the special meeting at 5:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
3 Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 9-6-2023
Agenda No. 6 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Posting Contracts and Agreements Online CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Motion to adopt a resolution posting contracts and agreements online.
2. Other action as directed by City Council related to this subject.
DISCUSSION
This item is for the City Council to consider Resolution 2023-XX Posting Contracts and Agreements Online which is attached to this Agenda Report including Exhibit A which is City Council Policy 000-29 Posting Contracts and Agreements Online pursuant to City Council direction on June 7, 2023.
The Resolution includes Findings in support of the Resolution as follows:
Posting important documents is a practice by many cities in California.
Posting allows public confirmation of Council and Staff actions.
Posting provides ease of public access.
Posting reduces public records requests.
Posting will enhance the public’s trust and confidence in local government.
A contract was recently awarded to Cities Digital Inc. and a Document Management System implemented.
Phase I with posting of vendor contracts to a public portal was launched February 2023.
Phase II will include other types of City agreements such as leases and grants and include a search capability.
Posting of documents should be in accordance with Records Management and Records Retention Schedule Policy 000-19.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
PGCC 9-6-2023
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Reso and Attached Policy
PGCC 9-6-2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XXX
POSTING CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS ONLINE
FINDINGS .
1. Posting important documents is a practice by many cities in California.
2. Posting allows public confirmation of Council and Staff actions.
3. Posting provides ease of public access.
4. Posting reduces public records requests.
5. Posting will enhance the public’s trust and confidence in local government.
6. A contract was recently awarded to Cities Digital Inc. and a Document Management System implemented.
7. Phase I with posting of vendor contracts to a public portal was launched February 2023.
8. Phase II will include other types of City agreements such as leases and grants and include a search capability.
9. Posting of documents should be in accordance with Records Management and Records Retention Schedule Policy 000-19
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 hereby approves City Council Policy 000-29 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6h day of September, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PGCC 9-6-2023
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 9-6-2023
EXHIBIT A
City of Pacific Grove
City Council Policy
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page
Posting Contracts and Agreements
Online
000-29 September 6, 2023 1 of 1
PURPOSE:
To provide ease of public access to important contracts and agreements describing actions taken by city government.
POLICY & PROCEDURE:
All contracts and agreements having a value of $5,000 or greater shall be posted online within 30 days of execution by all parties.
Contracts and agreements shall include but not be limited to:
• purchases
• construction, professional, maintenance, and vendor services • leases
• grants
• loans
• promissory notes
• franchises
• other contracts and agreements
Confidential information contained within vendor or legal services contracts or other agreements shall be excluded on approval by the City Attorney.
Contracts and agreements shall remain posted in accordance with Council Policy 000-19 Records Management and Records Retention Schedule.
Adopted September 6, 2023- Resolution 23-xxx
PGCC 9-6-2023
Agenda No. 6 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Interim City Manager Job Description CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to adopt a resolution approving Interim City Manager Job Description or alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
Currently no Interim City Manager Job Description exists.
An Interim City Manager fills the vacant City Manager position while City Manager recruitment activities are underway.
The Interim City Manager job description is attached to the Resolution submitted with this Agenda Report.
The Interim City Manager job description is modeled after a City Manager job description.
The key distinction for an Interim City Manager is the requirement of considerable city management experience. Thus, the requirement of a minimum of 15 years of increasing responsibility in an administrative or managerial capacity in a municipal organization.
At the Special Meeting of the City Council on August 30, 2023, the City Council gave direction to the City Attorney to return to the City Council with a Resolution approving the Interim City Manager job description.
An Interim City Manager who is a CalPERS retired annuitant is limited to 960 hours (equivalent to 24 weeks) of employment per fiscal year (Government Code sections 7522.56 and 21221(h)). This amount of time should be sufficient to fill the permanent City Manager position.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
PGCC 9-6-2023
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Reso Approving Interim City Manager Job Description PGCC 9-6-2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XXX
RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERIM CITY MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION
FINDINGS
1. Currently no Interim City Manager Job Description exists.
2. An Interim City Manager fills the vacant City Manager position while City Manager recruitment activities are underway.
3. The Interim City Manager job description is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
4. The Interim City Manager job description is modeled after a City Manager job description.
5. The key distinction for an Interim City Manager is the requirement of considerable city management experience. Thus, the requirement of a minimum of 15 years of increasing responsibility in an administrative or managerial capacity in a municipal organization.
6. At the Special Meeting of the City Council on August 30, 2023, the City Council gave direction to the City Attorney to return to the City Council with a Resolution approving the Interim City Manager job description.
7. An Interim City Manager who is a CalPERS retired annuitant is limited to 960 hours (equivalent to 24 weeks) of employment per fiscal year (Government Code sections 7522.56 and 21221(h)). This amount of time should be sufficient to fill the permanent City Manager position.
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 Interim City Manager Job Description attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A is incorporated herein by reference and is hereby approved.
3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6th day of September, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PGCC 9-6-2023
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 9-6-2023
1 EXHIBIT A
Interim City Manager Job Description
SUMMARY:
To plan, organize, and direct the overall administrative activities and operations of the City. To advise and implement City Council goals and policies. To perform all duties as specified by the City Charter.
Per Article 19 of the City Charter, the powers and duties of the City Manager shall be:
• To see that all ordinances are enforced.
• To appoint all heads of departments, subordinate officials, and employees, and remove the same, and have general supervision and control over the same. • To exercise general supervision over all privately owned public utilities operating within the City so far as the same are subject to municipal control. • To see that the provisions of all franchises, leases, contracts, permits and privileges granted by the City are fully observed and to report to the Council any violations thereof. • To act as purchasing agent for the City. The City Manager shall know the exact condition of the treasury at all times and shall approve all demands before the same have been allowed by the Council if the City Manager is satisfied that the money is lawfully due. • To attend all meetings of the Council unless excused therefrom by three members thereof or by the Mayor.
• To examine, or cause to be examined, without notice, the conduct, or the official account and records, of any officer or employee of the City.
• To keep the Council advised as to the needs of the City. • To have supervision over all City property, including public buildings, parks, and playgrounds.
• To appoint such advisory boards as the City Manager may deem desirable to advise and assist the City Manager provided the members of such boards shall receive no compensation.
• To cause a quarterly statement of all funds in the treasury to be submitted to the Council.
Such statements shall be submitted not later than the first meeting in November, February, May, and August.
• To assume general control of the City government and all of its branches in case of riot, insurrection or extraordinary emergency, and to be responsible for the suppression of disorders and the restoration of normal conditions.
ADDITIONAL ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:
Additional duties may specifically include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Direct and participate in the development and implementation of all City goals, objectives, policies, and procedures;
• Direct the preparation of plans and specifications for work specified by City Council; PGCC 9-6-2023
2 • Interpret, analyze, and explain policies, procedures and programs to staff and public as appropriate;
• Confer with residents, taxpayers, businesses, and other individuals, groups and outside agencies having an interest or potential interest in affairs of City concern; • Respond to public feedback on city operations including requests for information; • Represent the City in the community and at professional meetings as required; • Coordinate City activities with other governmental agencies and outside organizations; MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Any combination equivalent to experience and education that provides required knowledge and abilities described below.
Education: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in public or business administration or a closely related field. A Master's degree is desirable.
Experience: A minimum of 15 years of increasing responsibility in an administrative or managerial capacity in a municipal organization including as a city manager, assistant city manager or department head in a California community of similar size and complexity to Pacific Grove.
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS:
Knowledge of:
• Modern municipal management methods and procedures, organizations, and functions; Principles of public and business administration including public finance, personnel administration, and community and economic development; • Current social, political, and economic trends and operating problems of municipal government;
• Applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations regarding local government, land use and zoning regulations;
• Principles of effective public relations and interrelationships with elected and appointed city officials, community groups and agencies, private businesses and firms, and other levels of government.
Ability to:
• Work collaboratively with the City Council.
• Provide effective leadership and coordinate the activities of a large, full service, municipal organization;
• Facilitate teambuilding among City Staff and City Council; • Analyze, interpret, summarize, and present administrative and technical information and data in an effective manner;
• Take direction from and serve effectively as the administrative agent of the City Council; PGCC 9-6-2023
3 • Select, supervise, train, mentor, and evaluate staff.
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:
• Take an Oath of Office
• Must be willing to work varied hours, as well as attend evening or weekend meetings and community events, as appropriate
PGCC 9-6-2023
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: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: 2023 Monarch Sanctuary Annual Management Plan
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15307, Class 7, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove partners with Creekside Science for consulting services regarding the Monarch Grove Sanctuary. On a yearly basis, Dr. Stuart B. Weiss has worked with City staff to identify needed management activities in the Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park. Dr.
Weiss' report highlights recent history and current conditions, long-term views, and recommendations.
The major management actions that are recommended this year:
1) Manage large, downed wood. Buck up and distribute a large fallen pine tree. 2) Remove boxed trees from their current locations along the SE fence. 3) Further thin a group of Monterey cypress (planted in the mid-2000’s) in the NW corner.
This year’s recommendations in summary for the Monarch Sanctuary are:
1. Remove large standing dead trees and hazard branches. This effort was partially completed on an emergency basis following winter wind events. A large standing dead pine near the hotel driveway in the NE corner remains a potential hazard.
2. Manage large, downed wood. Buck up the trunk of a large fallen pine tree so it is in contact with the ground, cut smaller branches and either scatter, pile, or chip onsite.
3. A hiatus on major tree plantings. Closely monitor growth and health of young trees.
4. Remove boxed trees from their current locations along the SE fence line. They are beginning to root through the boxes and are in a crowded location.
5. Plant native shrubs along the southern boundary, along trails, and open understory to diversify and fill lower canopy wind gaps.
PGCC 9-6-2023
6. Further thinning of cypress stand toward the NW corner. This group of Monterey Cypress, planted in mid-2000s, is overcrowded. Two trees were removed in 2022 and the removal of an additional 2-3 trees is recommended to allow the remaining trees to expand their canopies and flourish.
7. Initiate thinning small eucalyptus in the SE corner. Removal of the weakest crowded trees will allow remaining trees to respond strongly to increased space and fill in the canopy.
8. Manage nectar beds. Follow horticultural guidance to optimize nectar bed flowering to coincide with monarch presence.
9. Manage pine seedlings. Maintain and cage pine saplings and water appropriately.
10. Continue to irrigate new plantings with an emphasis on fewer deep irrigations and weaning new plantings off irrigation after a few years.
11. Take a broader view of the site and work with neighbors, including the hotel, to establish communication and cooperation towards site management.
The City of Pacific Grove is dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the Monarch Grove Sanctuary. Annually, Dr. Stuart Weiss and City Staff perform a walkthrough and prepares the management activities for implementation prior to the overwintering months, approximately October 1 – April 30. Before performing the recommended maintenance activities, the annual management plan is brought forth to the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and then sent to California Fish and Wildlife for their review. The management report is sent to Fish and Wildlife, who hold a Conservation Easement granting them oversite of the Sanctuary and all activities that occur within the property.
City staff and Dr. Stuart Weiss hosted a walkthrough of the Monarch Grove Sanctuary on August 25th with over 30 people in attendance to discuss the proposed maintenance activities. It is anticipated that the recommended actions, along with some general cleanup, will occur before October 1st and the anticipated overwintering begins.
OPTIONS
Do nothing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All proposed activities will be funded through Public Works operations budget.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
2023 Management Plan Update
PGCC 9-6-2023
1 Stuart B. Weiss, Ph.D.
www.creeksidescience.com
[email protected]
650 269-2876
Assessment and proposed
management activities Monarch
Grove Sanctuary and George
Washington Park for 2023
Monarchs reforming clusters in strong
NW winds afternoon Jan 1 2023
Monarchs on large cypress tree near
northern boundary March 1, 2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
2 Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 3 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4 Pacific Grove in California Context ............................................................................... 5 Seasonal Monarch Behavior ........................................................................................... 6 Weather 2022-2023......................................................................................................... 7 Nectar.............................................................................................................................. 7 Current state of Monarch Grove Sanctuary .................................................................... 8 Recent Management Actions in 2020- 2022................................................................... 8 General 2023 Recommendations.................................................................................... 9 Specific 2023 short-term recommendations ................................................................. 10 2023 Recommendations for George Washington Park................................................. 12 Photo Gallery ................................................................................................................ 12 Figures........................................................................................................................... 17 Monarch photos ............................................................................................................ 23 Habitat Photos............................................................................................................... 24 Appendices........................................................................................................................ 31 Appendix A. Site history and New Management Plan ..................................................... 31 History of Habitat Management.................................................................................... 31 A New Site Management Plan.......................................................................................... 32 Produce a New Base Map of Monarch Grove Sanctuary ............................................. 32 Repeat hemispherical photography............................................................................... 33 LiDAR........................................................................................................................... 33 Wind mapping............................................................................................................... 34 Weather Stations........................................................................................................... 35 Assessing New Plantings.............................................................................................. 36 Tree health .................................................................................................................... 36 Evaluation of Shade Limitations................................................................................... 37 Long-term Management Considerations to be Incorporated into the New Management Plan ............................................................................................................................... 38 An Adaptive Management Framework......................................................................... 40 George Washington Park .................................................................................................. 41 Appendix B. Hypothesized causes of the 2020 population crash and subsequent recovery. ........................................................................................................................................... 43 The Western Monarch Population through 2017.......................................................... 43 PGCC 9-6-2023
3 Monarch Crash of 2018-2020 ....................................................................................... 43 Recovery in 2021 .......................................................................................................... 44 Appendix C (From 2011 Assessment and Monitoring Plan)............................................ 46 Principles....................................................................................................................... 46 Adaptive Management Plan.............................................................................................. 47 Stated Objectives .......................................................................................................... 47 Appendix D. LiDAR snapshots and discussion................................................................ 48 Executive Summary
In 2022, the California overwintering population was estimated at ~335,000 butterflies during the Thanksgiving Counts. The Western monarch butterfly migration has made a great comeback from perilously low numbers (~2000) in 2020, rising to ~250,000 in 2021. Hypothesized causes of the crash and the recovery are covered in the 2022 report (and attached to this report as an Appendix).
Peak numbers at Monarch Grove Sanctuary (MGS) were estimated at 12-16,000 from early-November through December. Numbers dropped to 12,000 in early January, following a series of intense storms in mid- and late-December. This 18% drop from December to January was one of the best performances of any large site in California.
Numbers declined to 9,000 by mid-January, and to 5,000 remained by early March. Only 300 remained by mid-March. It was a relatively late emigration, reflecting an absence of mid-winter heatwaves in the coldest winter in many decades.
After arriving in October, the butterflies clustered in sunny areas on the southern edge of the grove, primarily on eucalyptus. By mid-November, they clustered in the South Interior of the grove on Monterey pines and then retreated farther into the grove as many storms brought strong winds. By early February they were deep in the grove on a few cypresses close to the north fence, and by March some spread to the driveway and back south into the interior.
The general health of the trees has improved with the sustained and heavy rainfall in 2022-23. A large live (but old) tree fell in the interior of the grove and took out a healthy young pine. New plantings of Monterey cypress (2021) are well established and are actively growing. Boxed trees remain along the SE fence and in a gap near the hotel driveway.
The major short-term management actions recommended for 2023 are:
1) Removing hazard trees and branches
2) Buck up and distribute the large fallen tree in the interior.
PGCC 9-6-2023
4 3) Hiatus on new tree plantings except for one spot by the hotel driveway 4) Initiate and continue thinning of overly dense trees. 5) Remove boxed trees before they root in place.
6) Remove old stakes and cages.
7) Manage nectar beds, and plan for replacement and pruning of poorperforming species and beds. 8) Re-examine irrigation scheduling and implementation. Implementing deep watering at George Washington Park is one immediate area of adjustment.
Longer-term management actions will benefit from a new comprehensive site management plan that will guide activities well into the future. Funding is likely available via the Monterey County Resource Conservation District (as part of a large statewide program) and with the participation of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (which hold the conservation easement on MGS). The key elements of this management plan were presented in the 2022 report in some detail. including some examples of habitat mapping with LiDAR. They are included as Appendices in this 2023 report for completeness and ease of reference.
Introduction
The following recommendations and assessments are based on site visits over the 2022- 2023 season and on-site consultations with City Arborist Albert Weisfuss and environmental manager George Fuerst in Spring 2023. They are presented in the context of the 2011 Management Plan (Weiss 2011) and subsequent consultations with City staff and residents, including annual recommendations from 2014-2022 (Weiss 2014-2022). The recommendations are based on previous scientific work at dozens of monarch sites, professional judgment, input from stakeholders in Pacific Grove, and field assessments. They attempt to carefully balance monarch habitat needs, hazard reduction, and forest health, based on both short-term and long-term perspectives.
Background data on monarch numbers at Monarch Grove Sanctuary (Xerces Society Thanksgiving Counts and New Year’s Counts) provide context of the entire California monarch population. Butterfly monitoring data from the Pacific Grove Museum since 2013 have documented monarch use patterns and habitat suitability relative to weather and time of season. This reporting on monarch abundance and distribution provides a long-term accessible record for the local community.
The major elements of this report are:
1. The numbers at Pacific Grove in California context, including both Thanksgiving and New Years’ Counts.
2. The monitoring data from the PG Museum on monarch numbers and distribution through the season, and interpretation.
3. A graphical view of Monterey Airport data, to identify high wind events and aid in interpreting the movement of monarchs within MGS.
PGCC 9-6-2023
5 4. A brief review of management actions completed in recent years.
5. Recommendations for management actions in summer 2023.
6. Photographs of monarchs and habitats with notes.
7. Discussion of opportunities for a new management plan and the elements of that plan (Appendix A).
8. An exposition on potential causes of the Western monarch crash from 2015- 2020, and subsequent recovery (Appendix B).
9. A repeat and update of the long-term management considerations from previous reports, where still relevant (Appendix C).
10. A supplemental separate document with some visualizations and analysis of LiDAR data from 2016, as a demonstration of the potential of this new technology (Appendix D).
In 2020, City Arborist Albert Weisfuss completed a detailed report with his recommendations, and those were considered in the 2020 report (Weisfuss 2020). The assessments and recommendations (with a few noted exceptions) are a solid foundation for guiding management, and the input of a professional arborist is essential especially on matters of tree health and species suitability.
A horticultural report (Regan Biological and Horticultural Consulting 2022) was developed that addresses issues with the nectar beds.
Pacific Grove in California Context
Monarch Grove Sanctuary supported a peak of 15,960 monarch butterflies in late fall 2022 (Thanksgiving Counts). The California total was 335,479 monarchs at more than 100 sites from Sonoma County to Baja California. The numbers of monarchs at Pacific Grove primarily reflect the ups and downs of the overall California population (r2 = 0.82), with some variations among years (Table 1, Figure 1). MGS has served as one of the major overwintering sites in California, accounting for an average of 7% (range 1% to 14%) of the Thanksgiving Counts since 1999. Its rank among all CA sites ranged from 1 st
(2006) to 17th (2009), and MGS is almost always in the top 10 sites. For Monterey County (from 2001 on), MGS accounted for an average of 37% (range 17% to 58%) of the county population.
In 2022-23, MGS supported 4.8% of the CA population, and 62% of the Monterey County population during the Thanksgiving Counts. It was the 4th largest site in California.
The New Years’ counts (Table 2) across several sites are an indication of how well sited maintained monarch numbers through December and early January. MGS retained 82% of its butterflies, its highest retention rate since 2019. It is one of the better retention rates in California, similar to Lighthouse Field (84%) and higher than Pismo North (75%), PGCC 9-6-2023
6 Moran Lake (70%), and Natural Bridges (60%). And it compares favorably to the overall retention rate for California as a whole (42%).
Seasonal Monarch Behavior
In general, monarchs seek wind-sheltered but sunny sites within forest groves along the coast. They “crowdsource the microclimate” - taking flight when conditions are too warm or too cool, too sunny, or too shady, and especially too windy. They tend to land where other monarchs are clustered, because the best indicator of good conditions for monarchs is the presence of other butterflies. The butterfly clusters move around according to the weather and time of year; lack of wind shelter is often the proximal cause of shifts. They often cluster just outside MGS to the south; and they use a mixture of tree species (eucalyptus, pine, and cypress) that varies from week to week and year to year.
The seasonal course of monarch numbers at MGS for 2013-23 (Figure 2a) shows arrival in October, peaks in late-November through early-December, and declines in January and February as monarchs die or leave the site. Butterflies move around MGS, often associated with wind events – they often start the season along the sunny southern boundary and move into the interior following southerly storm winds. Emigration and mortality (Monarch Photo 4) reduce numbers for the remainder of the season, with a final exodus by mid-February into early-March. The details of recent seasons (2013- 2022) are described in previous reports.
In 2022-23 (thick black line in Figure 3), monarchs arrived in mid-October, quickly rose to 12,000 by the end of October, and peaked at 16,000 by the end of November.
Numbers dropped to 12-13,000 into early January, and slowly declined through midFebruary to 9,000. A decline to 5,000 occurred in late-February, and the final mass emigration occurred by mid-March. The emigration was the latest among all nine years plotted here.
Monarchs clustered on a variety of tree species and shifted through the season (Figure 2b). In 2022-2023, monarchs started primarily on eucalyptus along the southern edge.
By late October, after storms and high winds, they moved to nearly 100%, Monterey pines in the interior and remained there through January. Many monarchs were clustered on lace lichen hanging from the pines. There was a shift to cypress trees toward the end of the season.
The spatial distribution of monarchs changed over the season (Figure 2c, 2d). They started out primarily on the south edge (blue), and progressively moved deeper into the grove, first to the South Interior just N of the E-W trail by late-November (light green), and then into the Interior (darker green) during December-January, and nearly 100% of the butterflies were in the North Interior (darkest green) by early early-February. In midFebruary and March, large numbers (more than 50% of the population) started clustering along the Driveway, and some were near the nectar beds.
PGCC 9-6-2023
7 The preference for pines and cypress for most of the season is the result of the windsheltered interior being dominated by pines and cypress, not an intrinsic preference for those species. In previous years, monarchs have used eucalyptus much more frequently during the bulk of the season.
Weather 2022-2023
The daily weather at Monterey Airport (KMRY, Figure3) provides a view of the regional synoptic meteorology (passage of storm fronts, high wind events, and temperature extremes). While KMRY does not absolutely represent the conditions within MGS, high winds there are representative of the conditions outside the canopy at MGS. KMRY serves as an indicator of high regional wind events that can be tied to historical monarch movements within MGS.
2022-2023 was a stormy wet winter, with many rain days numerous periods of high winds. The first high winds in October (>20 mph) drove the monarchs off the eucalyptus on south boundary, into the more sheltered pines in the South-Interior of the grove (Figure 2b, 2c). A series of strong wind events in December drove them further north, so by early January they were in the Interior. More strong winds in early-January drove them even further north to the North Interior. In February, many monarchs moved to the Driveway area and reoccupied the Interior.
The season was also notable for being cooler than average, with a distinct absence of mid-winter heatwaves (>70°F) that stimulate monarchs to break diapause. Some monarchs remained on the site well into March, compared with emigration in January and February in most other years (Figure 2a).
The weather station along the South fence (presented in the 2021-22 report) was functional only through December so will not be reported on further.
Nectar
Monarchs will visit many species of flowers for nectar. Early season (OctoberNovember) nectar helps keep monarchs at MGS, where they can attract other monarchs arriving from the breeding grounds. Nectar provides energy for flight, and the high availability at many California overwintering sites allows monarchs to conserve fat reserves and maintain body mass.
The major species used at MGS are tree daisy (Monarch Photo 1), bottlebrush (2), and English Ivy (3). The ivy-covered stump at the NE corner attracts hundreds of butterflies in the fall.
Yellow butterfly bush (Buddleia) is also frequently used, but the bushes are overgrown and need some cutting back to freshen flower production and force flowering during the critical October-November period. Blue gum eucalyptus come into flower in January and PGCC 9-6-2023
8 provide copious nectar for the latter part of the season. The flowering red gum (E. filicifolia) sometimes blooms in the fall and is visited frequently during warm weather.
Monarchs will avoid shade when air temperatures are cool, so the sunny areas near the nectar beds are crucial and should be used to the fullest.
Another species that should be considered is orange colored Mexican sunflower, which is heavily used in the fall at the Gill Tract in Albany (Photo 4). More on that in the recommendations.
Current state of Monarch Grove Sanctuary
Monarch Grove Sanctuary continues to provide high quality overwintering habitat. Large numbers of monarchs persisted through a very stormy winter, indicating that there is sufficient wind shelter and dappled light in the interior.
The depth of MGS allowed monarchs to take refuge from strong southerly winds in the far Northern Interior section (also observed in 2017 and other years). The shelterbelt of eucalyptus and other species planted in 1999 is well established and now provides solid NW wind protection so that monarchs can remain in the Interior zone when winds shift from southerly to northwesterly following storms.
In terms of recent active management, most hazard trees and branches have been removed over time, but some dead pines remain, and others are close to death. One large old tree fell in a storm. New tree plantings are established and will eventually fill in some wind gaps, as well as provide cluster sites in favorable microsites.
Habitat photos, with documentation of location and photo orientation, of various parts of MGS are presented below with brief descriptions. The detailed analysis of the forest structure and microclimate is found in the 2011 Siter Assessment and Management Plan (Weiss 2011).
Recent Management Actions in 2020- 2022
The major recent action in fall 2020 was plantings of boxed Monterey cypress that had been brought into MGS in 2019. Several cypress trees were planted in the open area south of the main entrance and kiosk, where 1 or 2 trees were recommended as cluster trees. More cypresses were planted south of the main trail. Cypresses were also planted to the east of the nectar beds. Some bottlebrush and eucalyptus trees were also planted Some toyon and ceanothus were planted and caged.
Identified hazard trees and branches have been removed each year.
The irrigation scheduling appears to be working better, as there has been a tendency to overwater in past years.
PGCC 9-6-2023
9 The recommendation that new low-growing native nectar plants be established along the trail through the nectar beds has not been implemented. Suggested management of the existing nectar plants by selective pruning was not observed by June 2023.
The new tree plantings have not been mapped as of 2023, pending a new mapping effort for all trees, so a complete inventory is not available. A new map of MGS is a central element of a new management plan, as discussed below in Appendix A).
In 2022, the neighbors at 1070 Short removed a cypress in their backyard that was developing into a good windbreak tree. This emphasizes how important it is to have MGS as self-contained as possible in the absence of enforceable restrictions on neighboring properties.
General 2023 Recommendations
The general recommendation is that good forestry practices be consistently implemented. These practices include:
1. This is not a “natural” forest, and direct thoughtful forestry and arborist prescriptions are necessary to maintain the microclimatic structure of wind shelter and moderate light that attracts and retains monarchs.
2. Manage stem densities through selective thinning to allow for the development of healthy individual trees. The overly densely planted areas in the SE corner have had 10 years of growth, and have developed into a thicket of crowded, unhealthy trees. The removal of selected trees will reduce canopy competition for light and reduce root competition for water and nutrients. The remaining trees will expand their canopies and grow faster, producing better wind shelter that will more than compensate for the loss of sickly canopies. This work can be phased in over several years but should start in 2023. An eventual minimum spacing of 10’ is the target. This also applies to some of the cypress stands behind the nectar beds, where thinning started in 2022.
3. Slow down new plantings. Several dozen trees, including cypress, eucalyptus, and pines have been planted in recent years. The performance of these trees needs to be evaluated. A hiatus in new plantings, except in very limited areas discussed below, is recommended, along with more attention on taking care of the recently planted trees with well-planned (deep and infrequent) irrigation.
4. Proactive hazard reduction of dead trees and branches that threaten people and other trees. The path is the obvious target and several hazards have been identified in 2023 (discussed below). But interior dead trees that do not have a trail as a target are a threat to other trees - the large tree that fell this last season in the Interior Zone took out a desirable healthy young pine tree (Habitat Photo 21). There is a large dead tree in the NE interior that will do the same thing when it falls (Habitat Photo 10).
PGCC 9-6-2023
10 Specific 2023 short-term recommendations
1. Remove large standing dead trees and hazard branches (Habitat Photos 9, 10, and 18). One tree along the main path has already been removed in summer 2023, because it posed an immediate hazard (Habitat Photo 18). Toward the NW corner, there are dead branches overhanging the main path that urgently need to be dropped safely. All dead and nearly dead branches within reach of the trail should be identified, inspected, and removed. Near the hotel driveway, a large dead standing pine (Habitat Photo 10) is poised to eventually fall and take out desirable trees, like what happened in 2023 (Habitat Photo 21).
2. Manage large, downed wood. Buck up the trunk of the large fallen pine so that the trunk is in contact with the ground. Cut smaller branches and either scatter, pile, or chip onsite (Photo 19). Collect a good sample of the cones, to spread in areas where pine seedling recruitment is desired. Leave the upturned trunk as potential wildlife habitat (Photo 20). The major goal over time is to avoid excessive fuel accumulation. This tree took out a healthy mid-sized pine tree (Habitat Photo 21), serving as a lesson as to why large snags need to be dealt with.
3. A hiatus on major tree plantings until a full inventory and structural assessment is completed as part of a new management plan (see Appendix). There are plenty of new trees in the ground for now and their growth and health should be monitored closely. Eventually, it may be necessary to thin some trees to encourage individual tree health.
4. Remove boxed trees from their current locations along the SE fence (Habitat Photo 1). They are currently rooting through the bottoms of the boxes. These trees are too crowded relative to the large trees just west, too close to the fence, and unnecessary for wind shelter given the structures and the dense tree canopies developing to the further west of the large trees.
5. New limited plantings of large trees. The exception to the hiatus on new plantings is that one or at most two potted trees in the gap on the Hotel property can be planted (Habitat Photos 2, 11). If two trees are planted (to have one backup) then the less vigorous one should be thinned after several years once survival of the desired tree is clear. Avoiding overplanting is essential for individual tree health and rapid growth to fill this gap.
6. Shrub plantings. Planting native shrubs like toyon along the south boundary with 1070 Short will help fill in the wind gaps produced by the removal of the cypress in the backyard and create a more attractive edge. Newly planted cypress and eucalyptus just inside MGS facing this gap will provide mid-story wind protection after a few years. Planting native shrubs along trails and in open understory areas can diversify the understory, but plants need protection from deer browsing.
7. Further thinning the cypress stand toward the NW corner (Habitat Photo 7) with removal of two more trees to be selected in the field, to allow for more room for the remaining trees while maintaining wind shelter. Two trees were PGCC 9-6-2023
11 thinned in 2022. The remaining trees will expand their canopies in the absence of competition and fill out the canopy openings.
8. Initiate thinning small eucalyptus in the SE corner (Habitat Photo 4). The weakest crowded eucalyptus in the SE corner to allow for development of healthier trees (Habitat Photo 4). Some of these trees are nearly dead, after ten years of growth in crowded conditions. Plan on removing a few trees each year until a suitable density (10’ spacing) is achieved. Some of the trees immediately along the fence (Habitat Photo 16) should be thinned as well. The remaining trees will respond strongly to increased space and fill in the canopy rapidly, and individual trees will be much healthier and grow more rapidly.
9. Remove old stakes and cages (Habitat Photo 17). Many trees planted in the last decade still have stakes, collars and cages that are no longer needed. Each staked tree should be evaluated, and the stake/cage removed if no longer needed.
10. Manage nectar beds. A report on the nectar beds was produced recently (Regan Biological and Horticultural Consulting 2022), and provides excellent assessments and recommendations. The yellow Buddleia bushes should be pruned to refresh growth and force flowering in the fall. Half of the canopy should be pruned to a density determined by consultations with a master gardener or other horticultural expert. Some nectar beds support species that are not used by monarchs (such as the mallow) and should be replaced. Mexican sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia, Monarch Photo 4) is an excellent addition – it is heavily used at the Gill Tract in Albany. Additional native nectar plantings in sunny trailside areas should be considered but should wait until the rope fencing is replaced.
11. Manage pine seedlings. Maintain and cage pine saplings in the interior (Habitat Photo 14). Apply irrigation as needed in the first one or two years for establishment of planted pines – the emphasis should be on relatively few deep irrigations over the dry season, not frequent shallow irrigations. There are several natural recruits from seed east of the nectar beds that should be retained and encouraged. Trees that naturally recruit develop resilient root systems that explore the soil to great depth. Experiments with pine seeding on patches of freshly bare soil could develop a method for recruitment of healthy pines. Collecting cones from fallen trees could provide a good source of seeds for such experiments.
12. Irrigation. The irrigation regime for new plantings be continued, but trees and shrubs should be weaned off irrigation after a few years once established. An evaluation of the irrigation program by the City arborist is recommended. Again, the emphasis should be on a few deep irrigations over the dry season, not frequent shallow irrigation.
13. Neighbors. Take a broader view of the site and work with neighbors. Trees in the surrounding neighborhoods can provide critical wind shelter. For example, a growing cypress south of MGS at 1070 Short Street was taken out leaving a gap in the wind shelter. New plantings of cypress and eucalyptus within MGS will PGCC 9-6-2023
12 eventually seal this gap. The trees on the hotel property are also integral to the monarch habitat. Working out lines of communications and responsibilities will help site management progress more smoothly.
2023 Recommendations for George Washington Park
The bulk of the consideration of GWP is in the Appendix as part of the long-term management plan outline. No major actions, except immediate hazard tree management, are recommended until a full site assessment is completed.
One immediate issue is adjusting the irrigation schedule for the numerous pines that have been planted in recent years. Long-term survival and health of these pines requires that they grow roots to tap deep soil water once irrigation is stopped after several years.
Volunteers have devoted much time and effort in irrigating these trees, and it is important to have an effective irrigation schedule for deeper watering. The current irrigation schedule only provides shallow water, which encourages the pines to grow roots in the shallow wet zone at the expense of deeper roots. It is highly recommended that the watering regime be changed to deep irrigation so that each tree receives much more water in each watering, with less frequent watering. The exact schedule needs to be worked out, but as a start, twice the water at half the frequency is suggested.
Photo Gallery
The photo gallery documents many of the observations and recommendations, and some (not all) are referenced in the text above.
Literature cited.
Crone, E.E., Pelton, E.M., Brown, L.M., Thomas, C.C. and Schultz, C.B., 2019. Why are monarch butterflies declining in the West? Understanding the importance of multiple correlated drivers. Ecological Applications, 29(7), p.e01975.
Crone, E. and Schultz, C., 2021. Resilience or Catastrophe? A possible state change for monarch butterflies in the West. Ecology Letters, 24(8), pp.1533-1538.
Espeset, A.E., Harrison, J.G., Shapiro, A.M., Nice, C.C., Thorne, J.H., Waetjen, D.P., Fordyce, J.A. and Forister, M.L., 2016. Understanding a migratory species in a changing world: climatic effects and demographic declines in the western monarch revealed by four decades of intensive monitoring. Oecologia, 181(3), pp.819-830.
Fordyce, J.A., Baert, N. and Forister, M.L., 2020. Pesticide Contamination of Milkweeds Across the Agricultural, Urban, and Open Spaces of Low-Elevation Northern California.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, p.162.
PGCC 9-6-2023
13 James, D.G., 2019. A neonicotinoid insecticide at a rate found in nectar reduces longevity but not oogenesis in monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (L.).(Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae). Insects, 10(9), p.276.
James, D.G. and Kappen, L., 2021. Further insights on the migration biology of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from the Pacific Northwest.
Insects, 12(2), p.161.
Leong, K.L.H. 1990. Microenvironmental factors associated with the winter habitat of the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera:Danaidae) in central California. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 83:906-910
Leong, K.L.H. 1991. Use of multivariate analyses to characterize the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera:Danaidae) winter habitat. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 84:263-267.
Pelton, E.M., Schultz, C.B., Jepsen, S.J., Black, S.H. and Crone, E.E., 2019. Western monarch population plummets: status, probable causes, and recommended conservation actions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, p.258.
Regan Biological and Horticultural Consulting. 2022. City of Pacific Grove Monarch butterfly Sanctuary Horticultural management.
Schultz, C.B., Brown, L.M., Pelton, E. and Crone, E.E., 2017. Citizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western North America.
Biological Conservation, 214, pp.343-346.
Weisfuss, A. 2020. Monarch Grove Sanctuary. An Assessment with Recommendations.
Arborist report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Weiss, S.B. 1998. Habitat Suitability, Restoration, and Vegetation Management at Monarch Grove Sanctuary, Pacific Grove, California. Report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Weiss, S.B. 2011. Management Plan for Monarch Grove Sanctuary:
Site Assessment and Initial Recommendations. Report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Weiss, S.B. 2013-2020. Proposed management activities Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park. Annual memorandum/report to the City of Pacific Grove.
Yang, L.H., Ostrovsky, D., Rogers, M.C. and Welker, J.M., 2016. Intra‐population variation in the natal origins and wing morphology of overwintering western monarch butterflies Danaus plexippus. Ecography, 39(10), pp.998-1007.
PGCC 9-6-2023
14 PGCC 9-6-2023
15 Table 1. Monarch Butterfly Thanksgiving Counts Xerces Society Monarch Grove Sanctuary (MGS) George Washington Park (GWP), Monterey County, and California Totals. *MGS was the only site counted that year.
Year MGS GWP CA Total Monterey
Co.
MGS %
CA
MGS %
Monterey
MGS CA
Rank
1997 45,000 1,235,490 45,000 4% 100%* 10 (tie)
1998 35,000 564,349 41,000 6% 85% 5
1999 25,000 267,574 25,000 9% 100%* 3 (tie)
2000 20,000 0 390,057 20,000 5% 100%* 6 (tie)
2001 14,960 209,570 31,203 7% 48% 4
2002 4,700 99,353 11,593 5% 41% 5 (tie)
2003 22,802 2,750 254,378 68,979 9% 33% 2
2004 10,867 4,325 205,085 54,481 5% 20% 4 (tie)
2005 12,199 2 218,679 37,540 6% 32% 4
2006 28,746 11,795 221,058 59,957 13% 48% 1
2007 8,181 2 86,437 15,426 9% 53% 3
2008 17,866 0 131,889 31,063 14% 58% 2
2009 793 0 58,468 4,735 1% 17% 17
2010 4,968 0 143,204 8,634 3% 58% 4
2011 12,265 61 222,525 27,788 6% 44% 4
2012 10,790 0 144,812 29,048 7% 37% 4 (tie)
2013 13,420 1 211,275 35,772 6% 38% 3 (tie)
2014 18,128 0 234,731 55,879 8% 32% 3
2015 11,472 0 292,888 27,787 4% 41% 3 (tie)
2016 17,100 0 298,464 64,804 6% 26% 3
2017 7,350 0 192,629 35,657 4% 21% 8
2018 705 0 28,429 2,758 2.5% 26% 15
2019 642 0 21,944 2,792 2.9% 25% 8
2020 0 0 1,914 58 0 0 --
2021 13,608 0 247,237 26,502 5.5% 51% 5
2022 15,960 0 335,479 25,920 4.8% 62% 4
PGCC 9-6-2023
16 Table 2. Comparisons of Thanksgiving (NOV) with New Year’s (JAN) counts at selected sites from 2019 to 2022. 2020 had so few butterflies that it is not included.
SITE NAME NOV
2022
JAN
2023
%
2022
NOV
2021
JAN
2022
%
2021
NOV
2019
JAN
2020
%
2019
MGS 15,960 13,149 82% 13,608 10,055 74% 642 316 49%
Lighthouse
Field 3,365 2,836 84% 410 637 155% 3402 2600 76%
Natural
Bridges 7,500 4,500 60% 2,100 1,700 66% 1997 25 1%
Moran
Lake 5,701 4,000 70% 1,100 725 66% 400 30 8%
Pismo
North 24,128 18,073 75% 20,871 16,695 80% 6,735 3,625 54$ CA Total 285,332 120,492 42% 249,250 154,121 62% 24,899 12,526 50% PGCC 9-6-2023
17 Figures
Figure 1. Relationship between total California monarch numbers and MGS numbers, Xerces Thanksgiving Counts
Figure 2a. Monarch numbers through seasons. Data from Pacific Grove Museum PGCC 9-6-2023
18 Figure 2b. Monarch Tree Occupancy through Time
Figure 2c. Monarch Spatial Distribution by Zones
Figure 2d. Map of monarch cluster zones in Figure 2c and text.
PGCC 9-6-2023
19 Figure 3. Temperature and Wind Speed at Monterey Airport PGCC 9-6-2023
20 Figure 4. Monarch Occupied Trees (Green Triangles) and cluster zones, Grid in meters
PGCC 9-6-2023
21 Figure 6. Management Zones. Grid in Meters
PGCC 9-6-2023
22 Figure 7. Insolation maps from 2011 report. Note the small halos in the interior east of the outline of the old building footprint; which is the interior cluster zone. The high insolation areas NW of the old building are where nectar (primarily tree daisy and bottlebrush) is available the entire season
Light gap Light gap
Light gap Light gap
PGCC 9-6-2023
23 Monarch photos
1. Monarchs nectaring on tree daisy 2. Monarchs nectaring on bottlebrush
3. Monarchs nectaring on English ivy 4. Monarchs on Mexican sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia) at Gill Tract,
Albany
5. Monarchs forming clusters late
afternoon, January 2023. Strong NW
winds
6 Monarchs on large cypress in NorthInterior, March 2023.
PGCC 9-6-2023
24 Habitat Photos
Photo 1. Eastern boundary with boxed
eucalyptus trees. At their current size,
these trees provide marginally increased
wind shelter above that provided by the
houses to the east.
Photo 2. Potted trees placed in a gap on
the hotel property. Originally, these trees
were planted in the ground, but were dug
up after consultation with city staff.
Planting two trees at most in this gap
would be the best way to fill this gap with
a healthy trees
PGCC 9-6-2023
25 Photo 3. Two cypress planted in the open
area of the SE corner of MGS. These trees
may develop into cluster trees in a windsheltered area with dappled light Photo 4. SE corner. These eucalyptuses
were planted too dense in 2013 (3-5’
apart) and are growing poorly and in poor
shape. The well-spaced trees (10-15’
apart) that were officially authorized in
2012 are much healthier and taller.
Photo 5. Eucalyptus planted in 2012 at
appropriate spacing (10-15’) are now 25+
ft tall and are establishing a second row
north of the main eucalyptus row.
Monarchs have clustered on these trees
early in the season.
Photo 6. Second row of eucalyptus
planted in 2021, to fill in gaps in the
southern boundary.
PGCC 9-6-2023
26 Photo 7. Group of cypress panted in mid2000s, thinned in 2022 by removing two trees to allow for more rapid growth and
health of remaining trees. One or two
additional trees should be removed in 2023.
Wind shelter will not be compromised, and
the remaining trees will fill in.
Photo 8. The NW-side of the eucalyptus
windbreak planted in 1999. This mixed
species shelterbelt provided critical NW
wind protection for the interior of the
grove where monarchs clustered in
2021-2022 (and other years).
Photo 9. Dead branch over the trail NW of
nectar beds, to be removed.
Photo 10. Dead pine near NE corner.
This tree threatens important interior
trees and should be removed. An
irregular-topped snag can be left behind.
PGCC 9-6-2023
27 Photo 11. View from interior to east
showing the hotel, which acts as a
windbreak from this direction. The view N
is blocked by an array of pines,
eucalyptus, and cypress. The gap to the SE
is where potted trees were placed.
Photo 12. Newly planted cypress east of
nectar beds, part of a double row of trees
planted to seal up this edge and protect
the interior cluster zone.
Photo 13. View to SSW from trail, rapidly
growing cypress between trail and Grove
Acre Ave.
Photo 14. Pine saplings planted in
interior.
PGCC 9-6-2023
28 Photo 15. Nearly dead pine in interior.
This relatively small tree does not threaten
other trees and can be retained for now,
the lichen provides some wind shelter
function and cluster opportunities
Photo 16. Dense eucalyptus plantings
along southern fence. Thinning trees here
would allow for better growth of
remaining trees. The trees right up against
the fence will eventually ruin the fence.
Photo 17. Typical unnecessary old stakes Photo 18. Dead pine tree along path.
Major hazard, removed in June 2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
29 Photo 19: Crown of fallen tree in Interior Photo 20.Upturned root ball to be retained.
Photo 21. Medium-sized healthy pine taken out by treefall, an example of why it is important to remove large standing dead trees.
PGCC 9-6-2023
30 Photo 22. View into interior cluster zone
of pines. Maintaining some relatively open
habitat with dappled light in this area is
important for monarchs.
Photo 23. Cypress sapling near bend in
the trail, with 1999 eucalyptus shelterbelt
in background and relatively open interior
to east.
Photo 24. Irrigation Zones Photo 25. Irrigation documentation Photo 25. Pine plantings in George
Washington Park
Photo 26. Pine plantings in George
Washington Park
PGCC 9-6-2023
31 Appendices
In 2022, some site history and the components of a new management plan and its implementation were outlined. These sections are repeated here Appendix A. Site history and New Management Plan
History of Habitat Management
This section provides a brief history of management plans and actions over the past 25 years. More complete accounts can be found in the 2011 Assessment and Management plan and in subsequent annual reports. Some historical perspective is necessary to set the stage for a new management plan.
In the 1990s and 2000’s, monarchs primarily clustered along the southern boundary, often on the neighbor’s pine tree. They would move into the Sanctuary proper to escape southerly storm winds but returned to the southern boundary when winds swung around to the NW. Based on the 1998 assessment and management plan (Weiss 1998), a shelterbelt of blue gum eucalyptus was planted in 1999 to protect the site against NW winds.
Following the planting of the shelterbelt, little was done in the grove. Attempts to plant a second row of eucalyptus to reinforce the southern boundary, as recommended in the 1998 plan, failed because trees were pulled up. The many dead and dying pines (from old age and pitch canker) were not removed, despite a recommendation in the 1998 report. In 2005, a dead branch fell and killed a woman, and the grove was closed to the public for the remainder of the season. Following the overwintering season, the dead trees were taken down, and many wildlife snags were retained. Several more hazard trees were removed in 2007-2008 following additional consultations.
In fall 2009, several large branches on the southern boundary were cut, without consultation, because a branch had fallen into the neighbor’s yard, and other branches posed hazards to the neighbors. These branches included favored monarch cluster sites.
This action coincided with the (then) record low point of the California population, and only 900 monarchs overwintered in Pacific Grove. The situation stimulated the development of a new management plan, completed in 2011.
In fall 2011, potted trees were brought into the grove and placed in the SE corner near where the branches had been cut, to create some temporary wind shelter. Based on the new management plan, in 2012 several of these trees were planted in an additional row of eucalyptus just north of the southern boundary trees, at 10-15 ft spacing.
By 2012, the 1999 shelterbelt trees had grown tall enough (50-60’) to provide wind shelter in conjunction with nearby pines and cypress, and monarchs moved into the interior of the grove and remained there for the remainder of the season, clustering on PGCC 9-6-2023
32 pines and cypress trees that receive more insolation than surrounding branches (see below for a discussion of shading). Note the light gap area of higher insolation circled in in Figure 7.
In spring 2013, potted trees that had been brought into the grove as a temporary wind shelter were planted in the ground, creating a dense stand of small trees in the southeast corner of the grove. It was a period of conflicts over grove management.
In recent years, most hazard trees have been removed, and management actions have been relatively minor.
A New Site Management Plan
The 2011 Assessment and Management plan is now 11 years old. Conditions have changed enough that development of an updated plan is necessary. The annual funding that covers this annual report is not sufficient to develop a comprehensive plan using the latest assessment tools, as well as addressing the institutional issues that have arisen over the nearly three decades since Monarch Grove Sanctuary was established.
Funding is available via the Monterey County Resource Conservation District (RCD), as part of national and statewide initiatives to recover the western monarch population.
Discussions among the City, the RCD, and monarch scientists are ongoing, and once RCD funding is secured the process can start.
Some key elements of a new assessment and management plan, first are suggested in the 2021 review, include:
Produce a New Base Map of Monarch Grove Sanctuary
Managing MGS is an exercise in landscape architecture, with the goal of maintaining wind shelter from all directions but allowing sufficient light in the interior so that monarchs can choose a mix of sunny, dappled, and shaded spots within the forest. Also, management of hazard trees and tracking of new plantings and subsequent growth are desirable so that a record of actions is maintained, and precise plans for each year can be laid out and executed as planned.
The foundation of a long-term management plan is an accurate map of the Sanctuary, including property boundaries, tree locations, tree species, tree diameter at breast height (DBH), tree height, and tree health. In addition, new plantings, understory plants, trails, and other features should be added on an annual basis.
In 2010, a working map of MGS was produced for the 2011 Assessment and Management Plan (Figures 5 and 6). The 2011 map used triangulation with tapes to lay down a 10 m grid, and trees were mapped out within those grids to within 1-2 meters.
Hemispherical photographs were taken at each 10 x 10m point. Attempts to tie the grid PGCC 9-6-2023
33 to surveyed property lines were stymied by poor GPS accuracy within the forest, and distortions of horizontal distances by topography. Therefore, the working map is not georeferenced and has its own local coordinate system. This map has served adequately since 2011 for management but is now out of date because of tree mortality and new plantings.
Rather than update the current map, it is recommended that a new map be produced with surveying equipment such as a Total Station and LiDAR, and be tied into the parcel map, digital elevation model (DEM), and other base data for Pacific Grove. GPS is not accurate enough within the denser parts of the grove.
Remapping all the trees is an opportunity to reassess their health, requiring the city arborist to be involved. Although the soaking rains of October and December 2021 alleviated some drought stress, the dry winter and spring of 2022 once again herald drought stress, but was relieved by a very wet season in 2022-23. Special note should be made of drought symptoms where visible.
Repeat hemispherical photography
Nearly exact relocation of photopoints is possible through triangulation from the SE fence corner, even without a formally surveyed base map. Some photographs were reshot in 2018 but never fully analyzed. Repeat photos should be taken so that the change in conditions from 2011 and 2018 can be quantified.
Methods for interpolating wind and light have improved since the 1998 and 2011 reports and can be redone in such a manner as to directly compare sites through time and understand the effects of canopy changes through time.
LiDAR
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is a state-of-the-art method for quantifying the 3- dimensional structure of vegetation at fine scales. A laser scanner is used from either above (airborne) or below (ground-based). The reflections are timed to calculate distance, and a “point cloud” of reflections is produced. There are software packages, including ARCGIS Pro, that can analyze and display the point cloud and describe vertical structures in detail.
Projects at other monarch sites (in Sonoma County) has developed some methods for quantifying wind and solar radiation at the outer canopy surface, using ARCGIS Pro and Wind Ninja software.
LiDAR data can be collected from airplanes, drones, or from ground-based scanners. A LiDAR flight over Pacific Grove was completed in 2018, with resolution of 5.68 pts/square meter and is available at:
https://portal.opentopography.org/usgsDataset?dsid=CA_FEMA_Z4_B1_2018 PGCC 9-6-2023
34 Example images and analyses from this LiDAR product are presented and discussed in the supplemental report “Examples of LiDAR for Assessment of Monarch Butterfly Habitat in Pacific Grove.” (Appendix D). The point density (5.68 pts/square meter) is lower than that used in Sonoma County (9-12 points/square meter) but is sufficient to capture many canopy features. But it is not adequate to fully map the middlestory and understory. One advantage is that it is possible to map the surrounding urban forest and assess wind shelter from a broader area.
It is possible to contract for drone LiDAR that can produce a map of several acres at high point densities (>100 points/square meter). Laguna Drones in Los Gatos, or other vendors, can provide services for $5-10,000 depending on the amount of processing. A drone flight would produce the best up to date map and capture nearly full understory structure.
Many innovative LiDAR analyses are being developed at Ellwood Mesa in Goleta, where a drone flight acquired 200 pts/m2. It is now feasible to simulate hemispherical photographs at any height above the ground, hence quantifying insolation and wind exposure exactly where the monarchs choose cluster sites.
Ground-based LiDAR is feasible, but requires accurate ground locations, and would be difficult to deploy on private property outside MGS. No vendors are known at this time.
Airborne LiDAR could also cover George Washington Park (GWP) and provide base data for a management plan there. GWP images are included in the LiDAR document (Appendix D).
Wind mapping
Kingston Leong (1990, 1991) has developed a method for mapping wind on a grid using hand-held wind meters. The meters are held for a short period (2 minutes or more) and the average and maximum windspeed recorded. These measurements are done under a variety of wind directions and can be correlated with monarch occupancy at fine scales.
Monarchs tend to leave sites when ground-level winds exceed ~5 mph (2 m/s). Leong used this method in his 1990’s report on MGS.
This wind mapping procedure could be executed by volunteers or students under supervision. The wind attenuation from outside conditions can be correlated with Wind Site Factors (WSF) from hemispherical photography, which would allow for better inference of wind exposure. A well calibrated wind attenuation model would be of great use across all monarch sites. LiDAR data could also be correlated with measured wind.
A fluid dynamic wind modeling program called Eddy3D has been used in Santa Barbara County to model wind at fine scales within monarch sites and assess management options. The LiDAR point cloud provides the 3-D structure as model input.
PGCC 9-6-2023
35 Weather Stations
The initial trial runs with the Ambient Weather station proved to be successful. The full season of data presented here is informative on monarch response to weather, especially wind. Several questions need to be answered for future deployment:
1. Is the station in the optimal location for understanding conditions in the grove? The current site on the south fence within the historical cluster zone is a good initial choice. It captures the wind exposure from the south, an especially important aspect of the grove and surrounding area. It was not possible to correlate the weather with monarch movements in 2020-21, but in 2021-22 the high winds in October along the southern boundary that drove the monarchs into the interior were captured.
2. Can the results be extrapolated to the rest of the grove? Temperature varies with height, minimum temperatures are coolest at the ground, and increase with height – some vertical movements of monarchs are associated with avoiding cold temperatures low in the canopy. There are simple models of temperature with height, which could be calibrated with small temperature sensors. Absolute humidity is more consistent across a forest grove, but relative humidity is a function of air temperature. Wind and insolation vary strongly from point to point according to fine scale canopy structure, which is captured with hemispherical photography and calibrated via the wind mapping protocol described above.
3. Would additional stations be useful? More sites in complex environments are generally better. But costs escalate rapidly when full stations are considered.
Temperature can be mapped using small data loggers (iButton Thermochrons or HOBOs) placed in a network to capture important gradients. A network of recording anemometers would be useful, as an adjunct to the wind mapping.
Exactly where one or more additional stations would be placed for maximal efficiency is a question that requires some considerable thought. A weather station in an open field at the Adult School could be a useful “outside the grove” baseline. A substantial amount of micrometeorological equipment – temperature, humidity, light, and wind sensors - is available from Francis Villablanca (Cal Poly SLO) and USFWS and has been offered to California monarch researchers and managers.
4. Is there a good “base station” that captures the general weather in the open for long timer periods? There are many weather stations in Pacific Grove and surrounding areas. But the wind at any station in the urban matrix will be very site-specific with obstructions like trees and buildings – official wind measurements are taken on 10 m tall towers in open areas to avoid ground effects. The Monterey Airport has the longest record, but the wind there is influenced by the local topography, so wind direction is modified, but wind speed is still a useful parameter (see previous reports) that identifies large scale synoptic (storm front) events. Hopkins Marine Station has a weather station right at the water’s edge, which would be good for regional wind, but PGCC 9-6-2023
36 temperatures will be much more buffered than at MGS. A thorough investigation of available weather stations would be a critical step.
5. Can weather in MGS be correlated with regional conditions? Yes, methods exist to create a model that transfers conditions from a base station to a local station.
The key is to have a calibration period (one year or more) where a wide variety of conditions are experienced.
A combination of short-term spatially distributed measurements and longer-term base station(s) is an optimal way to understand the microclimate withing MGS. Quantitatively correlating measurable forest structures to microclimate is key to assessing management options.
Assessing New Plantings
The numerous newly planted cypress and eucalyptus will eventually greatly change the canopy structure and microclimate in the grove. While providing additional wind shelter is an important goal, it is important to remember that it is possible to have too dense a canopy that does not let in enough light for monarchs. This careful balance must be maintained (see below).
It is standard practice to overplant trees to account for mortality, and eventually thin them to a density that encourages individual tree health (Habitat Photo 7). The overplanted eucalyptus in the SE corner (Habitat Photo 4) are an example of where thinning is necessary to enhance individual tree health, and recent thinning of the cypress behind the nectar beds is a good example.
Another consideration is that the spreading structure of Monterey cypress can deeply shade a site for decades, until the lower branches drop and open the understory.
At this point, it is important to evaluate the eventual growth of these new trees and plan accordingly so that they do provide additional wind shelter, but are not overcrowded and competing with one another, and do not provide excessive shade in key parts of the grove.
Tree health
As mentioned above, the health of each tree and prospects should be documented by a professional arborist.
In particular, the redwoods along the western boundary have not been performing well, especially during droughts. The weakest of these trees should be removed in phases and replaced with cypress or pines to maintain wind shelter. Some of the older tall pines are in poor shape, and may pose hazards to people, structures, and other trees. Prompt attention to hazard trees with “targets” should they fall is an essential annual activity.
Pine pitch canker is an ongoing threat to Monterey Pines and should be monitored.
PGCC 9-6-2023
37 Other diseases and insects should be noted.
Evaluation of Shade Limitations
While wind shelter is paramount, monarchs often seek sunny or dappled light habitats for clustering. The consistent use of the sunny southern boundary trees and adjacent trees to the south reflect this preference. But the high southerly wind exposure in those sites means that monarchs move north into the more protected interior of the grove.
Such a move occurred in October 2022 following an intense early season storm, and this behavior has been noted in many years.
But, in the wind-sheltered interior of the grove, shade may be limiting use by monarchs.
The large eucalyptus on the southern boundary cast shade deep into the grove, and additional pines and cypress north of the path add to the shading. Maintaining some open habitat in this area is essential (Habitat Photos 17 and 18).
The 2011 Assessment and Management Plan has insolation maps that are copied here (Figure 7). These maps show that there are some higher insolation sites in the interior – note the small halos within the deep blue areas near the center of the grove - which are where monarchs tend to cluster on pines when they move into the interior. Repeat photography of these sites would establish if the canopy has grown and filled enough to cast more shade.
Shade can also limit access to nectar. The nectar beds are just west and north of the outline of the former building (removed in 2011). The southern portions of the nectar beds are deeply shaded for much of the winter and are inaccessible except when high air temperatures allow monarch flight in shady habitat. The northern section of the nectar bed area is the best area for season-long nectar access (note the orange and yellow zones NW of the old Brokaw Hall outline). In the longer term, the growth of trees to the south and west of the nectar beds could increase shade limitations. Again, reshooting hemispherical photographs could quantify any differences in shade patterns.
A thorough evaluation of shade limitations, and potential ameliorations through selective pruning or even removal of trees to decrease deep shade should be conducted. Of course, maintaining wind shelter is essential. Modification of hemispherical photographs can provide a first order estimate of effects on both sunlight and wind. If LiDAR is available, then a similar modification of the canopy can be simulated by deleting potions of the point cloud.
Any such modification of the canopy by opening will require rigorous documentation and a cautious approach, given the sensitivity of the site and the Pacific Grove community.
PGCC 9-6-2023
38 Long-term Management Considerations to be Incorporated into the New Management Plan
Management of Monarch Grove Sanctuary is a long-term process. This section looks ahead to anticipated changes and issues over the next decades, so that current management recommendations can be put into context. Much of this section is reiterated from previous reports, with a few updates.
1) NW Windbreak: The 1999 blue gum plantings are now 60-80’ tall and provide critical NW wind shelter and allow monarchs to remain in the interior of the grove following storms that drive them from the wind-exposed southern boundary. These eucalyptus trees are the anchor of a multi-species windbreak and are absolutely necessary to maintain long-term windbreak functions because pines may succumb to pitch canker and cypress will lose lower branches. The mid-story of pines and cypress currently contributes to windbreak function, as the foliage on the blue gums is concentrated in the upper canopy. 2) Eucalyptus threat?: The ground along narrow zone below the NW windbreak eucalyptus is being affected by leaf and litter fall, but less than 0.1 acres are affected. The comments on page 2 in the 2020 arborist report (“potential catastrophic effects”) greatly exaggerate the threat to native forest, especially since the eucalyptus will not be allowed to spread, and the litter deposits can be occasionally raked up. The remainder of the interior and northern reaches is available for native forest management.
3) Southern Boundary: The 2011 blue gum plantings inside the southern boundary, authorized by the City, have grown to heights of 25-30’ and are beginning to provide additional wind shelter. Monarchs clustered on some of these trees in November and December 2019, with a peak of 53 (~15% of the population) on December 5 (see 2020 report). As these trees continue to grow, eventually monarchs can cluster in a wind sheltered dappled light environment as envisioned in the 2011 Assessment and Management plan. These trees will provide redundancy for the large southern windbreak trees, and will eventually replace them decades from now. These trees are in a difficult environment for rapid growth, with shade and root competition from the large southern boundary trees, so they will continue to grow relatively slowly, but will be healthy. Planting some additional trees, Callistemon viminalis and Eucalyptus ficifolia as recommended by the arborist report in key locations would fill gaps, diversify the windbreak, and provide a multi-age structure. 4) SE Corner: The densely planted blue gums (2013) in the SE corner are showing signs of overcrowding (some were planted 3’ apart), with poor growth relative to more widely spaced trees. There has been a consistent recommendation over the years to thin these trees back to a more appropriate density, but it has never been implemented. The Weisfuss 2020 arborist report also recommends thinning these trees. Thinning will increase the health of the remaining trees, and their canopies will expand to fill in the available space. Several of them are PGCC 9-6-2023
39 now dead and should be removed. These trees will continue to grow poorly in crowded conditions and eventually self-thin, and they are competing with several of the authorized plantings from 2011.
5) Wind gaps: Farther west on the southern boundary, there are several larger gaps that should be filled. The arborist report recommends Callistemon viminalis and Eucalyptus ficifolia to diversify the windbreak and provide mid-story and low windbreaks. Cypresses are not recommended along the southern boundary because of sprawling growth form. Trees were planted in this gap in 2020. 6) Pines: Pines continue to succumb to pitch canker, and despite some wet years in 2017 and 2019, drought effects are still being expressed in some trees. The dry year in 2020 and very dry year in 2021 produced more drought stress. The soaking rains of October and December 2021 provided some relief with deep soil recharge, but the dry winter and spring 2022 means that trees will remain drought stressed. Continued plantings to maintain a substantial pine component in the grove is important, but pines still cannot be counted upon to provide longterm overstory. Pine plantings need to be protected from browsing and getting knocked over by deer. Removal of pines heavily infested with pitch canker can slow, but not stop the spread of this disease.
7) Previous cypress plantings: Many of the cypress planted over the last two decades are in their period of rapid growth and will provide significant wind shelter in coming years and decades. The cypress along with blue gums will provide the backbone of the grove, given the uncertainties of pine survival in the long run. Some densely planted cypress stands have been thinned in recent years to encourage more rapid growth of remaining trees, and continued selective thinning is recommended in several spots.
8) New Plantings 2020 More than 20 potted Monterey cypress were brought into the Sanctuary as temporary windbreaks in 2019. These trees have been planted in several parts of the grove (Habitat Photos 3 and 12). The locations of these trees should be recorded on the new base map. The cypresses are overplanted as discussed above, and eventually should be thinned once it is apparent which trees are strongest. If they are not appropriately thinned, the individual trees will be stressed and grow poorly. The spreading canopy of Monterey cypress can become too dense for monarchs, especially when tree crowns interlock. Special care should be taken to balance wind shelter and shade. 9) Oaks: Understory live oaks are scattered among the pines and cypress, and more plantings could fill in understory in select parts of the grove and provide good native habitat. Oaks can eventually provide low and mid-story windbreaks.
Planting acorns, with protection by tree tubes is an efficient method for oak plantings that allow roots to penetrate deep on their own. Planting plugs may appear more efficient, but the constricted roots of oak plugs often lead to longterm failure. 10) Native forest management: Overall, there are many sections of the Sanctuary where management for native forest is appropriate, with an emphasis on overstory pines. The northern reaches, beyond the NW windbreak is a prime PGCC 9-6-2023
40 example. The old pines have died or fallen, leaving wildlife snags and an open canopy. In addition to oaks, native shrubs (toyon and ceanothus are present, but a large palette of native shrubs is available) can contribute to understory structure. Non-native cover like the calla lilies can be removed in phases, and native forest floor forbs could be introduced in parts of the Sanctuary. All native plantings need to be protected from deer browsing. Some control of the dense annual grass cover is needed while understory is establishing, and annual grasses will always be a component of the forest floor. Some mowing of annual grasses is desirable for fire safety.
11) Irrigation: Maintaining the irrigation system for tree establishment and for watering during droughts, as well as developing a rigorous irrigation management plan overseen by City staff and implemented by volunteers, is critical. But irrigation should only be provided for the first year or two (unless severe drought occurs). The irrigation management has greatly improved in recent years, according to volunteers Habitat (Habitat Photos 24 and 25). 12) Nectar: Attractive fall blooming nectar plants help to retain arriving butterflies early in October and November. Nectar plants in sunny areas can be used far more frequently than those in the shade and sunny areas are at a premium.
Yellow Buddleia and tree daisy are the most attractive species in the beds, and replacement of some of the other species in the beds (i.e., the mallow) should be considered. The sunny edges along the trail are perfect for planting native nectar species for fall nectar. Away from the nectar beds, butterflies nectar on the flowering red gum when it occasionally blooms in the fall. Use of bottlebrush was noted every year. Later in the season, early blooming Prunus has provided winter-spring nectar in addition to the blooming blue gums. As mentioned above, a thorough evaluation of present and future shade limitations is desirable.
13) The neighbors: While there are some policies and ordinances with respect to the activities within a buffer zone around the Sanctuary, the truth is that the City has little control over tree removal and maintenance, and even may have obligations to protect the neighbors. Activities in recent years at the Hotel – tree trimming and removal - have had impacts on MGS, and the same can be said about the southern neighbors at a lesser scale. A clear policy and lines of communications about tree work will avoid some of the worst outcomes, but unless there is a strict ordinance that mandates consultations such actions will continue to have impacts. On a positive side, cooperation with the neighbors could enhance MGS.
An Adaptive Management Framework
In the 2011 Assessment and Management Plan, there is a section that discusses how to have an annual cycle in which decisions are considered and acted upon. This section is excerpted into the Appendix of this report. Adaptive management requires data, open minds, and a process. Some additional thoughts as of 2021 are warranted.
PGCC 9-6-2023
41 1. An official management plan is the key document and foundation of adaptive management. Having everything possible written and ordered in a living document creates a common platform for decision making. The elements of a management plan are discussed above.
2. A regular annual scheduled cycle of reporting, comments, and consultations is desirable. Starting in 2013, such a cycle was established and was a quantum leap from the ad hoc decision-making process prior to that. In some years, the presentation to BNRC and the public tour were later than optimal. A more formal schedule would keep the timing on track and allow for unhurried actions prior to the October 1 restriction.
George Washington Park
George Washington Park (GWP) is ready for a more detailed site restoration and management plan, which should be part of the proposed new management plan.
Observations and recommendations to be incorporated (largely repeated from previous years) include:
1) This is a unique site for California monarchs; it is one of the few remaining Monterey pine/live oak habitats for monarchs.
2) GWP has been used intermittently by monarchs, a few individuals can be found there every year at some point, but major clusters were observed only in 2003, 2004, and 2006 (Table 1). In 2006, there were more than 10,000 monarchs at GWP and very few at Monarch Grove Sanctuary. Since then, there has been only one year (2011 with 61 observed) with monarchs at Thanksgiving, none were observed from 2012 to 2019. Individual monarchs have been observed here during other times of the overwintering season.
3) The historic cluster sites in GWP are losing sufficient wind shelter for monarchs, and additional senescence of mature trees threatens this important component of habitat suitability. In particular, the largest pine at the historical overwintering site died several years ago, but there are several mid-story pines that are in positions to replace this tree over coming decades. Losses of forest cover to the south and west through overstory tree mortality is reducing wind shelter. 4) Removal of dead standing trees is recommended where they have stationary targets, especially around the edge of GWP. Dead trees that may fall across trails in the interior should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trees can be left as safe wildlife snags where appropriate, but a more naturalistic topping should be considered.
5) Reduction of accumulated deadfall by CALFIRE in 2014, 2015, and 2016 removed large piles of downed tree debris. This is important preparation for eventual site restoration. Some branch and log piles have been retained and downed logs are used to redirect foot traffic to fewer trails. Selective removal of large debris piles is recommended, with some piles retained for wildlife habitat.
PGCC 9-6-2023
42 6) Natural pine recruits, most common in disturbed areas, should be protected. 7) Less frequent deep irrigation of pines is preferable to frequent shallow irrigation.
A water trailer can be provided by the City for such a purpose 8) Plantings of pine seedlings has proven successful and should continue (Habitat Photos 25 and 26). Eventual thinning is required if establishment rates are high. 9) Live oak plantings can provide the under- and middle-story necessary for wind shelter in a mature pine forest.
10) Similarly, ceanothus and toyon can provide understory structure. 11) Operations on the perimeter of the park are the priority, to maintain safety from falling dead trees on adjacent roads, and to create a fire buffer. 12) The full impact of the recent and ongoing drought will continue to be expressed.
Trees may take one or two years to die after major drought stress and high rainfall season like 2016-2017, 2018-2019, and 2022-2023 may not allow for recovery once drought stress has weakened trees.
13) Establishment of a designated trail system and decommissioning of meandering paths impacting root systems of the trees is occurring. Ingrowth of poison oak is effectively shutting some social trails.
14) Now that there have been reductions in downed trees and debris, and the full impact of the drought on mature trees will become apparent, the long-term suitability of George Washington Park for monarchs should be assessed, using a combination of hemispherical photography, LiDAR and other suggested methods.
15) An assessment of pitch canker and tree health is especially important in GWP. 16) Once assessments are done, a long-term planting scheme (pines, oaks, and native understory shrubs) should be developed and implemented. The key elements of such a planting scheme should be to provide eventual replacements for canopy trees, create and maintain a mid-story of oaks and pines, and maintain wind shelter from all directions around defined canopy gaps.
PGCC 9-6-2023
43 Appendix B. Hypothesized causes of the 2020 population crash and subsequent recovery.
The overwhelming reality of the 2020-21 overwintering seasons in California was a population crash to less than 2,000 butterflies at the overwintering sites during the Thanksgiving Counts (Table 1). None were observed in Pacific Grove that year.
The causes of this crash, a 99+% decline from the most recent peak of ~300,000 monarchs in 2015 and 2016, are complicated and multifaceted. The following is an account of the declines, based on published information (see Literature Cited) and discussions with monarch experts. The exact mix of causes remains uncertain; the narrative here should be viewed as hypotheses rather than absolute fact.
The Western Monarch Population through 2017
The long-term decline from the 1980s and 1990s has been described and analyzed elsewhere (Crone et al. 2019, Crone and Schultz 2021, Espeset et al. 2016, James and Kappen 2021, Pelton et al. 2019, Schultz et al. 2017). The loss of breeding habitat in the Central Valley, changes in pesticide composition, weather fluctuations, and losses of overwintering sites are among the important causes. From 1999 to 2016, the California population fluctuated between ~60,000 and ~500,000, with a geometric mean size of 200,000 (Table 1). Notable lows included 86,000 in 2007, and 58,000 in 2009, coinciding with relative drought conditions across the West. But the population weathered the 2012-2015 drought, and recovered to ~300,000 in 2015 and 2016, and declined to 190,000 in 2017 (a very wet year). There are no simple relationships between annual precipitation in California and monarch numbers – causes are spread across the whole breeding range and season.
Monarch Crash of 2018-2020
In 2018, the population declined sharply to ~30,000 butterflies, a record decline to date.
A leading hypothesis for this decline was a record warm February 2018 with coastal high temperatures greater than 70ºF, which stimulated monarchs to break diapause and leave the overwintering sites. The record warmth was followed by the return of winter with a vengeance in March (extended rains, some freezing nights, snow down to <1000 ft). Such winter weather immobilizes and can directly kill adult monarchs, especially away from the mild coastal zone, and cold also delays the emergence of milkweeds. The phenological gap between monarch emigration and milkweed emergence has been identified as a key bottleneck, and the temperature signal at the coast does not perfectly correlate with the temperature signal inland.
Much of the spring 2018 generation was lost, and the subsequent generations were not able to make it up the rest of the season. No monarchs made it to Washington State in 2018. Only 30,000 returned to California that fall.
PGCC 9-6-2023
44 In 2019, the overwintering population declined by ~30% to 22,000, a relative change well within the historical range of variability. But again, no monarchs reached the Pacific Northwest for breeding that year.
The 2020 season was a disaster – nearly everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
February 2020 was warm and followed by a cool rainy March (but not as severe as 2018). August and September 2020 brought on record heat- monarch larvae cooked to death in the Santa Barbara area (115ºF or higher, and hotter closer to the ground with little shade). The heat extended across nearly all the breeding range in California. An example of the record heat is the average temperature for Monterey County in August and September (Figure 2). Four million+ acres of fires directly took out some of the breeding habitat in the South Coast Ranges that produce many monarchs that migrate to Pacific Grove (Yang et al. 2016). The weeks of smoke, which is harmful to insects, came just as the monarchs were initiating the migration. Then there was a hard freeze in some inland areas, for example 22ºF in Paso Robles in mid-November (Dan Meade pers. comm.). The monarchs had not yet flown to the coast because of warm temperatures in October. The extreme fluctuations in temperature and rainfall have been termed “weather whiplash,” and are a feature of the rapidly changing climate.
The mild fall and early winter weather also allowed breeding to continue - reproductive diapause is not completely hardwired in by photoperiod. Monarchs have been breeding year-round in SoCal for more than a decade, and in 2020 winter breeding was observed in the Bay Area and other mild coastal climates (Crone and Schultz 2021, James and Kappen 2021). Even the native milkweeds, especially showy milkweed, did not senesce and the widespread availability of tropical milkweed means that hostplant resources are available in urban areas throughout the winter. The presence of breeding resident monarchs in coastal areas could have intercepted migratory butterflies and shortcircuited diapause.
In addition, the widespread use of mobile and persistent neonicotinoid pesticides has produced toxic host plants and nectar in the Central Valley, even in non-agricultural settings such as wildlife refuges (Fordyce et al. 2020). Much of the migration beyond the Coast Ranges needs to cross the Central Valley (and other heavily agricultural areas like the Salinas Valley) twice. These areas potentially act as population sinks.
In summary, the collapse of the migratory western monarch population in 2020 was likely driven by weather whiplash and record heat waves (both symptoms of climate change), exacerbated by continuing toxification of breeding habitat in agricultural regions. However, any assertions and conclusions are conditional on deeper analyses and consideration of the entire western monarch migration.
Recovery in 2021
Monarch observers were truly despondent after the 2020-2021 overwintering season with only 2,000 butterflies at the overwintering sites. But in 2021, the monarchs PGCC 9-6-2023
45 exhibited a remarkable recovery to ~250,000 overwintering butterflies, observed in the November-December 2021. How could this 100-fold increase happen? First, the awesome reproductive potential of monarch butterflies (each female produces ~400 eggs) can be expressed if conditions on the breeding grounds are good. Four-fold increases per generation are well within the range observed in monarch populations – over 4 generations such increases multiply out to 256-fold increase (4x4x4x4x4 = 256).
As opposed to 2020, nearly everything went right in 2021, at least in the southern portion of the monarch range. Spring weather following the emigration from the overwintering sites was mild. No megafires occurred in the South Coast Ranges, which produce many of the overwintering butterflies and provide for short migrations that avoid the toxic Central Valley. Resprouting milkweeds in the 2020 fire scars may have provided high quality larval food. The record heatwaves of 2020 did not recur. And a near record Southwest Monsoon season (July-September) provided excellent breeding conditions in Arizona with lush milkweed growth all summer long (Southwest Monarch Project, pers. comm.). Most late summer Arizona monarchs migrate to Southern and Central California- sites in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties had more monarchs in 2021 than since the early 2000s, and numerous sites on the Central Coast, including Pacific Grove, were occupied by numbers not seen for many years.
There was not a spectacular recovery north of Pacific Grove. The Santa Cruz sites showed moderately increased numbers from 2020, but not to the degree further south.
East Bay and Marin sites supported only a few hundred monarchs in 2021. Several megafires occurred in the northern breeding ranges, including the record Dixie Fire (>1,000,000 acres), Caldor Fire, and a series of fires in NW California. Smoke lingered in Northern California through the September-October migration season.
While we will never know for sure the exact contributions of these factors in the decline and recovery, the western monarch population has given us a second chance and it is incumbent on all of us to improve the breeding and overwintering habitats.
Figure 2. Monthly Mean Temperature for Monterey County, August-November 2020. From Westmap (https://cefa.dri.edu/Westmap/Westmap_home.php) PGCC 9-6-2023
46 Appendix C (From 2011 Assessment and Monitoring Plan) Principles
The key principles for the adaptive management plan include resiliency, redundancy, dynamic ecosystems, proactive adaptive management, and decision making in the field.
Resiliency provides a range of conditions that buffer environmental variability. In the case of the Sanctuary, the key variables are wind, sunlight, and temperature. Ambient conditions outside the grove are filtered by the forest canopy, creating a complex fine-grained environment where microclimates change meter by meter through the site, and hour by hour through the season. As the varied combinations of wind shelter and light exposure change through the day and season, and monarch butterflies move about on fine-scales within grove, and broader scales among groves, as they attempt track their preferred environmental envelope, and avoid extremes. In particular, extreme windstorms can drive monarchs from sites.
Redundancy within the habitat means multiple lines of “defense” – two rows of trees, rather than one row, wind shelter from multiple directions, areas of full sunlight, dappled sunlight, and shade, multiple openings where appropriate, and other features.
The loss of branches, individual trees, groups of trees, or species of tree should not fully degrade habitat. Locally complex habitat may provide more opportunities within smaller areas.
Dynamic ecosystems – trees grow and die over years and decades, and even centuries, leading to incremental and even catastrophic changes in microclimate. On a smaller scale, branches naturally fall and may be removed for public safety. Decisions made today have repercussions for decades to come.
Proactive adaptive management means that changes are anticipated well in advance, and appropriate management carried out at a deliberate and measured pace. This requires a systematic adaptive management process among institutions and stakeholders to evaluate, plan, execute, assess, and re-evaluate, on an annual cycle in synchrony with the resource. Continued and refined monitoring of the distribution and abundance of monarchs over the season at the Sanctuary is an essential component of adaptive management.
Decision making and supervision in the field – All final decisions regarding tree management should be made in conjunction with a field visit, so that exact instructions can be communicated. Management activities – planting and trimming - should be monitored by qualified and interested individuals when possible.
PGCC 9-6-2023
47 Adaptive Management Plan
Resource management to protect and enhance Monarch Grove Sanctuary, or any monarch site, should be undertaken within the adaptive management model. Under this model, problems are assessed using existing information. Management regimes are designed and implemented in order to achieve stated objectives. Results are assessed through monitoring, and information gained is used to assess and adjust the management regime.
Through each iteration of the cycle, information is gained that further refines the optimal management regime (Figure 4).
The adaptive management process.
Stated Objectives
1) Implement forest and tree management to create a mosaic of microclimates that allow monarchs to locally adjust their distribution in response to variable weather, including extreme wind storms.
2) Maintain public safety by timely treatments of hazard trees and branches without compromising monarch habitat.
3) Establish and maintain diverse and abundant nectar resources in and near the Sanctuary to provide early and season-long nectar for the butterflies. 4) Establish and institutionalize the annual adaptive management cycle. 5) Reduce conflict and increase cooperation among the City and stakeholders. 6) Maintain the site for decades to come as the forest inevitably changes.
If these actions are successful, then monitoring of the local distribution and abundance of the population will indicate success at:
1) Attracting monarch butterflies each fall.
2) Maintaining persistent monarch butterfly aggregations through the overwintering season
PGCC 9-6-2023
48 3) Establishing use of new/modified/old trees and branches as the forest changes through time.
Quantitative goals can eventually be developed from detailed analysis of monarch monitoring data over past years, the relative proportions at different sites south and north of the Sanctuary. These analyses are beyond the scope of this report.
Appendix D. LiDAR snapshots and discussion.
This is presented as a s separate pdf document.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Examples of LiDAR for Assessment of
Monarch Butterfly Habitat in Pacific Grove
Stuart B. Weiss, Ph.D.
www.creeksidescience.com
[email protected]
650 269-2876
December 2021
View of Monarch Grove Sanctuary looking west. The hotel is in the foreground. The colors represent elevation.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Introduction
This document shows example of LiDAR (airborne laser scanning) at Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park. LiDAR is now being used at numerous monarch sites to assess 3-dimensional forest canopy structure and resulting wind and insolation (sunlight) patterns in the habitat. After consultations with Caleb Schneider, the LiDAR data set CA FEMA Z4 B1 2018 (https://portal.opentopography.org/usgsDataset?dsid=CA_FEMA_Z4_B1_2018) was processed and some sample images produced.
The survey dates were Feb-Apr 2018. The resolution is 5.69 points/m2relatively low resolution.
This is not the final analysis, but is a demonstration of the utility of LiDAR in monarch habitat assessment in Pacific Grove, both at Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park. The following examples show:
1) wind modeling as a first approximation of the important wind shelter provided by trees outside of the Sanctuary (a direct request from Caleb Schneider) 2) Oblique views of the Sanctuary showing wind shelter in the nectar bed clearing 3) Insolation and some visuals of canopy height
4) Oblique views of the Sanctuary showing some of the 3-dimensional canopy structure 5) A vertical view of George Washington Park, both B-W LiDAR height and an aerial photograph. 6) Oblique views of George Washington Park showing some of the 3-dimensional canopy structure.
A few notes are in the captions.
This LiDAR was flown in 2018, and there have been some small changes in canopy structure since then.
As part of a comprehensive assessment and formal management plan, a new LiDAR flight (from a drone) is suggested, as it can have resolution of > 50 points/m2(10 X the resolution here). With that level of resolution, understory will become more apparent, as will individual tree crowns and trunks. It will be a crucial baseline for mapping the Sanctuary and George Washington Park and complement a tree stem map as part of a comprehensive management plan. Elements of a comprehensive management plan are presented in the 2021 memo from Creekside Science (Weiss 2022, Assessment and proposed management activities Monarch Grove Sanctuary and George Washington Park for 2022). Caleb Schneider indicated that a request for proposals would be developed in 2022.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Identifying trees outside Monarch Grove Sanctuary that provide key wind shelter
The program WindNinja models wind dynamics over complex terrain (here a speed of 10 m/s (22 mph) and has been applied to the outer canopy envelope as a first-order approximation to identify which stands of trees provide wind shelter for the Sanctuary. The ovals show the critical wind shelter trees outside the Sanctuary, as evidenced by the low wind (blue) areas in the leeward areas of the tree stands. Note also how the western part of the Sanctuary where the nectar beds are is well sheltered from all directions. The analysis does not account for open areas below the outer canopy, that is the realm of the hemispherical photography.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Wind exposure viewed obliquely from the west
These oblique views show how trees provide wind shelter on their lee sides. In particular, the area around the nectar beds (N) is well sheltered, as are the areas east where the monarchs cluster. In this area, filling the holes in the foliage wall (as has been done with the cypress plantings, provides further wind shelter.
N
N
PGCC 9-6-2023
Solar Radiation and LiDAR Height Representations
The solar radiation maps for the 21st of each month show how the south-facing tree canopies, and the south edge are high insolation areas. The area behind the southern eucalyptus row has a few tree canopies with higher insolation, but insolation at monarch heights depends on light filtering through the tree canopies. Note how insolation decreases from October through December (and will increase through January and February). The right-hand column shows an aerial photograph, and two renderings of LiDAR heights, one in color and one in B-W.
N
N
N
PGCC 9-6-2023
Oblique Views of the Sanctuary.
The top view is from the south, and the stars represent cluster locations in recent years; the pine tree south of the city property, the southern edge, and the interior where most butterflies were in November 2021. The view from the NW shows the open are around the nectar beds, and the broken canopy above the November 2021 cluster zone.
PGCC 9-6-2023
George Washington Park
This B-W version of LiDAR height shows the George Washington Park overwintering site (approximated by the circle taken from the Xerces Society database). Below is the aerial photograph with a hillshade based on the LiDAR. Note how much denser and higher the canopy in the park is compared with the residential areas surrounding it.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Oblique views of George Washington Park
This oblique view from the south shows the broken Monterey pine canopy in the heart of the park. The darkest areas are ground points, mainly streets (Alder to the east of the grove).
George Washington Park view from the north. Pine Ave in the foreground (dark brown), Alder running south just to the east of the park.
PGCC 9-6-2023
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: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Appointment to Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointment of Natalie Marchenko-Fryberger to Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion ending January 31, 2026.
DISCUSSION
The appointment of Natalie Marchenko-Fryberger fills a vacancy on the Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
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 Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion members is 2 years as this is a non-Charter committee.
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.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Redacted Natalie Marchenko-Fryberger Application
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
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: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Meeting Minutes: June 12 and July, 2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
DEI June and July Minutes
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
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: Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Recreation Board Minutes: January 13, January 27, February 24, and March 24, 2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.
Attachments
Recreation Board Minutes January 13 2023
Recreation Board Minutes January 27 2023
Recreation Board Minutes February 2022
Recreation Board Minutes March 2022
PGCC 9-6-2023
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. on 1/13/2022 ROLL CALL – Charles Gibson, Jay Tulley, Elliot Hazen, Colleen Goldsmith. Also present: Public Works Director: Dan Gho; Recreation Manager: Katie Clark, Supervisor Rocky. Absent: Daryl Smith
2. PARK INSPECTION WORKSHOP – Charlie Gibson provided an overview of the park inspection program including use of the inspection form, elements of the park and facilities to be evaluated and how to identify park elements that may require prompt attention to correct. The Recreation Board and staff walked George Washington Park and discussed the current condition of many of its assets including landscaping, bbq area, restroom, park pathways, the baseball field and children’s play area, including background on safety and design and for ADA.
A list of park inspection sites board member was distributed with a target date for completion being January 28, 2022. Chair Gibson also informed the group that he had been in contact with board member Darryl Smith and that he would meet with him to go over this information on January 16, 2022.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:58PM
Submitted by Charlie Gibson
PGCC 9-6-2023
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. on 1/27/2022 ROLL CALL – Charles Gibson, Jay Tulley, Elliot Hazen, Colleen Goldsmith. Also present: Public Works Director: Dan Gho; Recreation Manager: Katie Clark. Council Liaison: Amy Tomlinson
Absent: Daryl Smith
2. Approval of Agenda: Approved 3-0-2 (Colleen Goldsmith had difficulty logging into meeting/did not vote)
3. Board and Staff Announcements: due to difficulty accessing meeting and large number of public wishing to comment and/or participate, both Mayor Bill Peake and Councilperson, Amy Tomlinson, suggested meeting be continued to another date, subject to PW Dan Gho determination of next available time to meet. Motion to continue meeting to another date passed 3-0-1.
4. Adjournment
CONTINUATION OF REC BOARD MEETING ON 1/31/2022
1. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 4:01 pm.
ROLL CALL – Charles Gibson, Colleen Goldsmith, Elliot Hazen, Jay Tulley. Also present: Public Works Director: Dan Gho; Recreation Manager: Katie Clark; Council Liaison: Amy Tomlinson
Absent: Daryl Smith
2. Approval of Agenda: Gibson requested Item C be moved to Item A on Regular Agenda.
Approved 3-0-2 (Jay Tulley logged on after vote)
3. Board and Staff Announcements: none
4. Council Liaison Comments: Amy Tomlinson thanked board members for flexibility on moving meeting date and reported no council meeting updates
5. General Public Comments:
A. Written Communication: receipt of 8 emails regarding the Feast of Lanterns event on city calendar; 2 emails regarding the Legends of the Autobahn event B. Oral Communication: none
PGCC 9-6-2023
6. Approval of Minutes: November minutes approved 4-0-1
7. Regular Agenda:
A. 2022/2023 Special Events Calendar: Katie Clark presented overview of event calendar with a total of 13 city sponsored events and 10 FCR (full cost recovery) special events.
Two new events are Legends of the Autobahn sponsored by Chamber of Commerce and AIM Walk & Rally sponsored by AIM Youth Mental Health. Estimate of special events budget provided (see agenda attachment). Errata Sheet provided by Kerry Lindstrom, Deputy City Clerk, recommended modification to calendar which would deny approval for Feast of Lanterns event.
Public Comment: David Kong, Michael Ipson, Karen Anderson, George Powell, Inge Lorentzen, Wendy Root Askew, Janet Cohen, Brian McCarthy, Richard, Laurel Lee Alexander, Carmelita Garcia, Sue Parris, Kathy Biala, Harvey Biala, Randy Sabado and Kimberly Brown spoke in support of canceling Feast of Lanterns event; Christine Gruber, President of Feast of Lanterns Board, spoke of future, kinder event; Peter Mounteer, PG Chamber, spoke in support of Legends of Autobahn event.
Commissioner Comment: Commissioners Hazen and Tulley thanked speakers and are in support Feast of Lantern event cancellation; Chair Gibson spoke in support of Legends event on conditional approval basis. PW Gho would like Legends approval brought to city council for final approval, once details worked out with the event organizer.
Motion to approve Items 1 through 5 of the staff report recommendation with addition of item 6, that logistics of the “Legends” approval be submitted to city council for final approval. Motion passed 4-0-1.
B. Park Maintenance Evaluations:
Chair Gibson is creating a summary of the park maintenance evaluations for February Rec Board agenda in order to discuss and evaluate site surveys.
Public Comment: none
C. Parks and Open Space Study:
PGCC 9-6-2023
Chair Gibson reported that the assessment of parks inventory is a working document that promotes park maintenance and repairs, but does not address park and open space planning (see agenda report). Proposal is that city should consider a park and open space study for 2022/23 fiscal year. The OS plan would identify and address the needs of the community.
Public Comment: Tina Rau stated that city needs a dog park; Inge Lorentzen com- mented that competition for open space is high; Kimberly Brown questioned cost of study.
Commissioner Comment: Jay Tulley supports study with public input; assessment of Rec programs; also stated that Washington Park was rated lower than other parks in past with proposed action items. PW Dan Gho stated that community survey results still being evaluated.
Motion by Chair Gibson to ask city council for funding for Park/Open Space assess- ment, whether executed by city staff or outside consultant. Motion passed 4-0-1
8. Next Meeting:
After show of hands for approval, the time for the next Rec Board meeting will be 6 pm on February 24, 2022.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm.
Submitted by Colleen Goldsmith
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:01 pm.
1. ROLL CALL – Charles Gibson, Chair; Jay Tulley; Elliot Hazen; Daryl Smith; Colleen Goldsmith.
Also present: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager; Dan Gho, PW Director; Amy Tomlinson, City Council Liaison.
2. Approval of Agenda: Approved 5-0-0
3. Board and Staff Announcements: Colleen Goldsmith thanked PW for quick response to the vandalism at the Jewel Park gazebo.
No staff comments.
4. Council Liaison Comments: Amy Tomlinson reported that special events calendar approved by city council; hybrid meetings for city council to commence March 2nd.
5. General Public Comments: none
6. Approval of Minutes for December 23, 2021, January 13, 2022, January 27, 2022:
Approved 5-0-0
7. Regular Agenda:
A. Selection of Officers: Jay Tulley, Chair; Elliot Hazen, Vice Chair; Colleen Goldsmith, Secretary. Approved 5-0-0
B. Rec Department Report & Mid-Year Financial Update: Recreation Manager, Katie Clark, presented program registration numbers, facility use and permits, winter/spring pro- gram update, and financial revenue/expenditure report (see agenda report). Clark further noted 2 new hires, Tim Miller, Rec Coordinator, and Elisabeth Causor, Lead Preschool Teacher.
Commission Comments: Goldsmith thanked Katie Clark for report and asked for clari- fication certain account fees (Dan Gho to follow up on bank fees inquiry); Tulley noted high utility costs and requested breakdown of costs; inquired when youth center will reopen; requested PW keep Rec Board updated on hiring for youth center; Gibson re the new fiscal year budget; Clark stated that new budget will be prepared, now that PGCC 9-6-2023
mid-year assessment completed, and city to soon begin summer recruitment. Dan Gho noted hiring for summer is high priority for PG; Amy Tomlinson offered to bring summer staffing challenges to city council; Gibson added that costs for ballpark backstop have trebled since last priced out by Dan Gho for PW.
C. Small Children Playground Equipment at GW Park: Dan Gho presented report for purchase of park equipment designed for ages 2 - 5 years, which City Council authorized for GW Park in the amount of 25k. (see agenda report and Miracle Playsystems proposal) Public Comment: Mark Faulkner does not like the equipment design. Written comments include 2 emails from Amy Tulley and Valentine Hemingway regarding equipment.
Commission Comments: Tulley would like public input and inquired whether funding could be used for perimeter and site planning, with play structures added later. Gibson noted his experience with 30-40 past projects and advised that “fall zones” are considered around play structures. Further added that this project seems underfunded and that there should be more public inclusion. Smith and Hazen would like to see other options.
Dan Gho will present additional options for next Rec Board meeting and will post item in Agenda and at GW Park in order to advise the public and seek community input.
Chair Tulley commented that this project could be good for fund-raising campaign like the Pool fund-raiser or a GoFundMe.
D. Parks Maintenance Assessment Report 2022: Charlie Gibson presented preliminary report (see agenda report) with overview, process, findings, and recommendations to be included with final report. Parks which were evaluated are included in report and conditions noted.
Public Comment: none
Commission Comments: every board member thanked Gibson for spearheading this pro- ject and production of the report.
E. CIP Proposals for FY 2022-2023: proposal forms are due March 14th. Chair Tulley noted that prior to Covid, there was a proposal to do a master plan for GW Park with walking paths, bocce ball, etc. for Zone 1. Gibson noted that there should be public input; also important PGCC 9-6-2023
to consider the relationship between the natural areas of the park (zones 2 and 3) and the recreational areas. Amy Tomlinson commented that BNRC would like to interface with the Rec Board on joint issues of concern. Other Commissioner suggestions include: dog park, gazebo at Ellmarie Dyke Park repair, additional play and ballpark areas for kids. Gibson will submit CIP forms to Joyce Halibi with the following items for consideration: a. open space study; b. fence replacement at Arnett Park ball field; c. replacement fabric at the Muni Ball Field; d. for GW and Arnett Parks: DG washed out, so develop permanent solu- tions to stormwater issue (item d falls under ARPA guidelines for funding) and bike pump track for Arnett Park; and e. dog park.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:04 pm.
Submitted by Colleen Goldsmith, Secretary
PGCC 9-6-2023
3/24 Meeting minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 - roll call - Tulley, Hazen, Smith, Gibson present. (Goldsmith arrived later.)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Gibson/Hazen - Approved 4-0-0
3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) - Hazen - Noted the outpouring of support for skatepark - requested item for next agenda.
Smith - Noted requested replacement for Feast of Lanterns Tulley - Noted submitted CIP list. Noted that Gho will submit the full list but with priority on the ones that have funding.
Clark - Noted that the city is still recruiting for summer staff such as life guards, etc. The priority screening deadline is 3/27 at midnight, but still hiring afterwards. There is a link on Facebook. Summer programs will be announced next week.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Tomlinson - Noted public support for skatepark and said that she also supports it.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Written Communication: 27 emails came in regarding the possibility of a skatepark. 26 comments were in favor of it. 1 comment was against it.
Hazen - noted that a pump park was also requested in the written communication.
Oral Communication: Emily Haselbauer: Discussed proposal for a PG skatepark. Noted the support but that the obvious question is the location.
She noted that the 2018 survey broke down youth participation from age 0-17.
She noted that there would be a benefit from a better breakdown of groups.
PGCC 9-6-2023
Tulley recommended we set up of subcommittee with Emily Haselbauer as community lead, Requested clarification from city staff on some questions regarding the process that would need to be followed. And requested clarification on fundraising rules and money given to the city.
6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - Gibson asked for edits - regarding cost of backstop - typo on triple, and that JT submitted CIP - 5-0-0
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A George Washington Park Public Input
Tulley discussed the need for a method to collect public input and presented a potential online Survey Tomlinson recommended a subcommittee of 2. She recommended keeping everything we have and add the ability to submit their own ideas.
Discussion from all members regarding the survey, ADA, age range, the conceptual rendering, and clarification of fundraising options. Gho noted that there is no intent to replace existing equipment.
Wants to add equipment for younger kids. Noted $25k grant request for approximately a $70k request.
Tulley - motion for a subcommittee of Tulley and Gibson. Smith 2nd - 5-0-0.
B Parks Maintenance Assessment 2022 Final Report Click to View Gibson gave a brief summary but focused on the conclusion and recommendations.
Gho noted that many of the items are being taken care of with maintenance Next Meeting – April 28, 2022
Requested items for agenda
1. Skateboard park
PGCC 9-6-2023
ADJOURNMENT - 7:19
PGCC 9-6-2023
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: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: September 06, 2023
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0318, Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project - Phase 9 - Coastal Zone Segments - multiple locations including APN 007-041-004 and Adoption of Negative Declaration of Project
CEQA: Initial Study, Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal, adopt a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, and approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0318), subject to the findings and conditions of approval.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department proposes to repair and replace the following three segments of the wastewater collection system located in the coastal zone: Railroad Way, Asilomar Dunes, and Arena Avenue (project). The purpose of the project is to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents of Pacific Grove by replacing existing infrastructure in need of repair. The total length of pipeline installation (via trenching and pipe bursting) for all three segments would total approximately 1,008 linear feet and involve a grand total of approximately 4,380 square feet of surface disturbance area.
City staff also prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) which analyzed the potential effects of the project on the surrounding environment and found that the project, as proposed and conditioned, would have less than significant or no impacts in all resource areas (see the CEQA section below for additional information).
Project Segments
The Railroad Way segment includes approximately 537 linear feet of pipeline replacement via trenching within the former railroad right-of-way. Specifically, planned improvements in this segment include the following: replacement of 245 linear feet of 6-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with 8-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline, reconstruction of a manhole approximately 92 feet from manhole 890, reconstruction of manhole 888, installation of 292 linear feet of 8-inch PVC pipeline, the plugging and in place abandonment of 292 linear feet of 6-inch VCP pipeline, and the construction of a new manhole approximately 100 feet from manhole 888.
PGCC 9-6-2023
The Asilomar Dunes segment includes improvements within a 10-foot utility easement in dune habitat between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Ave, as well as within the Sunset Drive right-of-way.
Planned work within the Sunset Drive roadway includes the following: replacement of pipeline that is at a 45-degree angle with a new straight section of 35 linear feet of 6-inch PVC, construction of a new manhole, removal of manhole 853, and plugging and abandonment of the angled section of 6-inch VCP pipeline. Planned work within the utility easement that extends through dune habitat and private property, between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue, includes the following: a 9 linear foot spot repair located approximately 69 linear feet from manhole 853A, construction of a new manhole (#854) approximately 167 feet from manhole 853A, reconstruction of manhole 855, and replacement of 95 linear feet of 6-inch VCP with 6-inch PVC via trenching.
The Arena Avenue segment includes excavation of 2 receiving pits and replacement of approximately 332 linear feet of 6-inch VCP with 8-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline (via pipe bursting) within the Arena Avenue right-of-way.
Note: Phase 9 of the Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project includes other segments not located in the Coastal Zone and not subject to City permit requirements. Due to their locations in the Coastal Zone, the three segments above are subject to a Coastal Development Permit. The overall project phasing is consistent with the City's Sewer System Management Plan, and involves near-term repair of deficient infrastructure.
Segment Locations
Railroad Way Segment – an approximate 540 linear foot section within and at the north end of the railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues [no address and no Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)];
Asilomar Dunes Segment – within the Sunset Drive right-of-way immediately west of, and within a 10-foot utility easement located on, 214 Asilomar Boulevard, located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue and approximately 480 feet south of Jewell Avenue [APN 007-041-004]; and
Arena Avenue Segment – an approximate 340 linear foot section of Arena Avenue within the road right-of-way between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue [no address and no APN].
Surrounding Land Uses
The Railroad Way segment is located within a railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues. The Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments are located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue in an area considered environmentally sensitive dune habitat and within an archeologically sensitive area. The Asilomar Dunes residential area is identified as an area of moderate to extreme biological sensitivity per Land Use Plan (LUP) Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map; and the Asilomar Dunes are considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area (LUP Section 2.4.1).
The three project segments are located in or adjacent to established residential neighborhoods, designated and zoned for residential use, and the project would ensure continued and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents.
Background and Summary of Appeal
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission (PC) considered the project and voted 6 - 1 (6 yes and 1 no) to adopt the IS/ND, and approve the project as proposed (PC permit attached). Based on the IS/ND analysis, potential project impacts in all resource areas would be either avoided (i.e., no impact) or less than significant. The Planning Commission found that the project, as proposed, is an appropriate use, would be consistent with the Local Coastal Program (LCP), and would not adversely impact public views, biological resources, coastal access, or other coastal resources.
PGCC 9-6-2023
On July 17, 2023, the appellant submitted a timely appeal (attached) of the PC's decision to adopt the IS/ND and approve the project. The appeal raised several points, one of which addresses coastal hazards (e.g., erosion) and states that due to the potential risk of coastal hazards City staff should have prepared a Coastal Hazards Report. The appeal also states that the project is not consistent with policies and regulations of the LCP. City staff reviewed the points raised in the appeal and responds as follows.
The appeal states that the project is not consistent with Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies PRA-1, PRA-2, and PRA-5(I). However, these policies address public access and recreation, and are not applicable to the subject project. The following LUP policies were also identified in the appeal, yet are also not applicable to the subject project: INF-5, BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-12, SCE-3, MAR-1, MAR-3, MAR-5, and HAZ-9. Although not required, City staff has added other identified LUP policies to the list of applicable land use plan policies below with which the project is consistent (i.e.; INF-4, HAZ-8, HAZ-10, HAZ-12, SCE-1, SCE-2, SCE-4, and LUD-1).
The appeal also stated that the project is not consistent with various Implementation Plan sections in PGMC Chapter 23.90. However, the sections identified are either not applicable to the subject project or have been determined to be consistent. For example, City staff completed an initial coastal hazards assessment and determined a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted in this case (see Coastal Hazards section for additional information). Per PGMC section 23.90.170, a biological assessment was completed for the project and is attached to the Final Initial Study (see Biological Resources section for additional information), and Condition 10 requires the preparation of a Temporary Traffic Handling Plan per PGMC section 23.90.210.
In summary, the appeal makes a number of statements that are either not applicable or relevant to the City's review, or not supported by the evidence (including the IS/ND analysis). The appeal also makes project-specific assumptions based on general references and no project-specific supporting evidence.
Based on information in the record, the appeal lacks substantive merit, and the project record sufficiently addresses the potential impacts of the proposed repair of the wastewater collection system.
Applicable General Plan Policies
The sites are designated as Open Space (OS), Low Density Residential 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (LDR 1-2), and undesignated or not applicable. The Pacific Grove General Plan provides a framework for development and operation of public facilities within the City. The Public Facilities Element (Chapter 9) includes goals and polices that call for the maintenance of a level of service adequate to meet the needs of Pacific Grove residents. The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, including the following:
Chapter 9, Public Facilities
Goal 2: Maintain a level of service in the City's sewage collection and disposal system adequate to meet the needs of existing and future development.
Policy 9: Incrementally repair and/or replace sewer system infrastructure to prevent excessive infiltration/inflow.
Program E: Prepare, adopt, and implement a sewer maintenance and replacement program.
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), certified on March 11, 2020, also provides a framework for public infrastructure within the City's Coastal Zone. The subject segment sites are designated Open Space (OS), Low Density Residential 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (LDR 1-2), and undesignated or not applicable in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).
The proposed project is consistent with applicable LUP policies, including the following:
PGCC 9-6-2023
INF-4: Wastewater disposal systems which minimize or eliminate marine resource pollution, and which provide for reclamation of wastewater for reuse, shall be encouraged.
INF-9: New or expanded water or wastewater facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the Land Use Plan.
INF-10: The City will consider the relocation of critical water and wastewater infrastructure, and necessary and feasible, to protect those services from the effects of sea level rise and other coastal hazards.
HAZ-8: Development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development shall also assure stability and structural integrity, shall not create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site, and shall not substantially alter natural landforms. Public infrastructure, public recreational access facilities, and coastal-dependent development shall be developed in a manner consistent with Policy HAZ-10, and may qualify for shoreline protective devices only if in imminent danger from erosion consistent with HAZ-15 and HAZ-16. All other development shall be developed in a manner consistent with Policy HAZ-9.
HAZ-10: New …, public infrastructure (e.g. public roads, sidewalks, and public utilities), and coastal-dependent development (any development or use that requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function such as Hopkins Marine Station) shall be sited and designed in such a way as to limit potential impacts to coastal resources over their lifetime. ….
HAZ-12: Development proposed in potential hazard areas, including but not limited to those that are mapped as hazardous in Figure 3, shall be evaluated for potential coastal hazards at the site, based on all readily available information and the best available science.
SCE-1: Public views to and along the shoreline shall be protected and enhanced, and alteration of natural landforms shall be minimized.
SCE-2: Preserving and enhancing the scenic qualities of the Coastal Zone is a priority in all City actions and decisions. Development that could adversely impact public views and scenic coastal areas shall only be allowed where it protects, preserves, and, if feasible, enhances such scenic and visual qualities.
SCE-4: The portion of Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone designated as having special scenic significance (i.e. scenic public view areas or scenic public view points) includes all areas designated on Figure 4 Scenic Areas, including all public view areas along Pacific Grove’s shoreline; areas seaward of Ocean View Boulevard and Sunset Drive; Lighthouse Reservation lands and Point Pinos Lighthouse; Asilomar Conference Ground dune lands visible from Sunset Drive; the Asilomar Dunes residential area; lands fronting the east side of Sunset Drive and the forest-front zone between Asilomar Avenue and the crest of the high dune (from the north side of Pico Avenue intersection to Sinex Avenue); public street ends along Central Avenue and other areas in which future study may support special scenic significance designation. The City will consider and protect the visual quality of these special scenic areas as a resource of public importance.
SCE-6: All new utilities shall be located underground or outside of public view.
SCE-10: The scenic native forest ... within the Union Pacific railroad right-of-way, shall be protected and retained, to the maximum feasible degree, consistent with the uses allowed by the Land Use Plan.
CRS-1: The City will conduct consultations with any federally-recognized California tribal government listed on the most recent notice of the United States Federal Register and any non-federally recognized California tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that identifies as native to the Monterey Peninsula, including the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, in accordance with state law.
CRS-2: The City will ensure the protection, preservation, and proper disposition PGCC 9-6-2023
of archaeological resources with the Coastal Zone ....
LUD-1: Protection of sensitive habitats, natural landforms, scenic resources, and other coastal resources is a priority in all City actions and decisions, and all development standards ... shall be interpreted ... so as to protect and enhance such resources to the maximum extent feasible.
Development shall only be authorized when the proposed use is allowed per the applicable land use designation, and when it meets all applicable Local Coastal Program policies and standards.
BIO-3: Applications for development within and near Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, including wetlands and streams, shall be accompanied by a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biologist and a botanical survey by a qualified expert prepared at the owner's expense, prior to consideration of a project within the City. ....
BIO-21: Development within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area shall require habitat assessment in all cases. ....
Applicable Zoning Code Regulations
As proposed, the project complies with the applicable zoning regulations and development standards set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapters 23.16 (R-1), 23.42 (O), 23.44 (U), and
23.90 (Coastal Implementation Plan or IP).
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
An application was filed with the Community Development Department (CDD) on November 30, 2022.
The application submittal is consistent with PGMC section 23.90.060. Findings and related conditions of approval are included in the draft permit (attached). Pursuant to PGMC Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and 23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, CDD staff determined the proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system would not be exempt from the requirement to obtain a CDP, and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on June 29, 2023.
Archeological Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project involves ground disturbance in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Donna Beddow; Harris & Associates; October 2022). The report concluded that the project, as proposed, would not impact cultural resources. However, due to the sensitivity of the area and the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, and per LUP Policy CRS-2, CDD staff recommends a standard condition of approval to require archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities.
Historic Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project does not involve above-ground structural development or permanent changes to a setting or location; therefore, an historic report is not warranted.
Biological Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted site inspections on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023.
Additionally, a qualified biologist team prepared a Biological Resources Letter Report (Emily Mastrelli and Katie Laybourn; Harris & Associates; December 7, 2022). The report, included as Appendix B to the Initial Study, concluded the project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive plants or wildlife species, and no mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources are required.
Based on the above information and analysis, City staff prepared and circulated a draft Initial Study which concluded that potential impacts to natural habitats and resources would be less than significant.
Project Design Features have been included as conditions of approval to minimize or avoid potential PGCC 9-6-2023
impacts throughout the construction process.
Scenic Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. This review determined the proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system, due to their short construction duration and no permanent above-ground structural development, would not adversely impact public views.
Coastal Hazards
Per PGMC section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, applications materials, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. This review determined the sites are not located in a Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone and the project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development. The project does not involve placement of new infrastructure subject to coastal hazards, and no aboveground structural development is proposed. Rather, the project replaces existing infrastructure in need of repair. The proposed repairs will all be located below ground, thereby making the project less susceptible to coastal hazards such as wave run up, tsunamis, etc. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted. The following information is provided to clarify this determination.
The scope of work on the Arena Segment would end on the east (landward) side of the Arena Avenue and Sunset Drive intersection, a point approximately 120 feet from the edge of shoreline and at an elevation of approximately 34 feet above mean sea level. The existing wastewater infrastructure west (seaward) of this project end point is not part of the project scope and would not be changed. This unchanged infrastructure includes the Arena Pump Station No. 16 and the connecting collection lines within Sunset Drive which would remain in their present locations. Again, at this location, no work would occur within Sunset Drive nor west of the roadway. The pipe bursting method planned along this segment is the least intrusive approach for replacement of the existing line.
The scope of work on the Asilomar Segment would end at a point approximately 145 feet from the edge of shoreline and at an elevation of approximately 29 feet above mean sea level. The replacement manhole on the seaward side of Sunset Drive would connect to an existing sewer collection main that will not be moved, replaced, or repaired. Also, an overflow line seaward of Sunset Drive would be plugged and abandoned in place. This approach regarding the overflow line is the least intrusive method as removal of the overflow pipe could result in avoidable damage to the surrounding sensitive marine habitat.
Additionally, for this project, the City is the applicant and City staff (Public Works and/or CDD staff) conducted the required reviews for consistency with applicable Land Use Plan policies and Implementation Plan development regulations.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15063(a) and 15063(b)(2), the City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department (PW), as Lead Agency, completed environmental review to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City prepared a draft initial study and negative declaration (IS/ND) for this project (attached). City staff filed the draft IS/ND with the County Clerk on March 30, 2023; and the IS/ND PGCC 9-6-2023
was circulated for public review and comment from March 30 through May 1, 2023 (State Clearinghouse Number 2023030780). All standard topics of environmental analysis were found less than significant or no impact. No public comment was received, no public agencies submitted comments, and no revisions to the draft Initial Study are necessary. The overall project phasing is consistent with the City's Sewer System Management Plan and involves near-term repair of deficient infrastructure.
OPTIONS
1. Deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, adopt the Negative Declaration, and approve the project as proposed;
2. Approve the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and deny the proposed project;
3. Direct the applicant to revise the proposed project subject to Council direction; or
4. Discuss and take other action related to this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding for Phase 9 Sewer improvements was approved as part of the FY 21-22 CIP Budget, and has been carried forward to subsequent years as Public Works prepared the appropriate documents prior to proceeding with construction. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit has no fiscal impact on the project. Upon approval, City staff will release a Request For Proposal for construction, which funding has been allocated for through previous CIP Budgets.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Appeal Letter and Form
CDD Application
CDP Application & Checklist
Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission Permit dated July 13, 2023
Plan Set
Final Initial Study & Negative Declaration
PGCC 9-6-2023
1 Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 July 16, 2023
City Clerk, Sandra Kandell
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (Via email: [email protected]) RE: APPEAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) 22-0318 TO ALLOW THE
REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF THREE SEGMENTS OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LOCATED AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS.
Dear City Clerk Kandell,
Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 23.90.100, I am writing to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on July 13, 2023, to approve the above referenced CDP Permit: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) 22-0318 TO ALLOW THE
REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF THREE SEGMENTS OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM LOCATED AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. This letter shall serve to supplement the attached Appeal Form and replace my July 15, 2023, email to you on the same subject.
PERTINENT FACTS AND BASIS OF THE APPEAL:
1) The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department proposes to repair and replace the following three segments of the wastewater collection system located in the coastal zone:
Railroad Way, Asilomar Dunes, and Arena Avenue (project). The purpose of the project is to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents of Pacific Grove.
The total length of pipeline installation (via trenching and pipe bursting) for all three segments would total approximately 1,008 linear feet and involve a grand total of approximately 4,380 square feet of surface disturbance area.
2) The Railroad Way segment includes approximately 537 linear feet of pipeline replacement via trenching within the former railroad right-of-way. Specifically, planned improvements in this segment include the following: replacement of 245 linear feet of 6-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with 8-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline, reconstruction of a manhole approximately 92 feet from manhole 890, reconstruction of manhole 888, installation of 292 linear feet of 8- inch PVC pipeline, the plugging and in place abandonment of 292 linear feet of 6-inch VCP pipeline, and the construction of a new manhole approximately 100 feet from manhole # 888. 3) The Asilomar Dunes segment includes improvements within a 10-foot utility easement in dune habitat between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Ave, as well as within the Sunset Drive right-of-way. Planned work within the Sunset Drive roadway includes the following: replacement of pipeline that is at a 45-degree angle with a new straight section of 35 Received by CDD-Planning
on July 17, 2023.
PGCC 9-6-2023
2 linear feet of 6-inch PVC, construction of a new manhole, removal of manhole 853, and plugging and abandonment of the angled section of 6-inch VCP pipeline. Planned work within the utility easement that extends through dune habitat and private property, between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue, includes the following: a 9 linear foot spot repair located approximately 69 linear feet from manhole 853A, construction of a new manhole (#854) approximately 167 feet from manhole 853A, reconstruction of manhole 855, and replacement of 95 linear feet of 6- inch VCP with 6-inch PVC via trenching.
4) The Arena Avenue segment includes excavation of 2 receiving pits and replacement of approximately 332 linear feet of 6-inch VCP with 8-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline (via pipe bursting) within the Arena Avenue right-of-way. 5) Railroad Way Segment – an approximate 540 linear foot section within and at the north end of the railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues [no address and no Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)];
6) Arena Avenue Segment – an approximate 340 linear foot section of Arena Avenue within the road right-of-way between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue [no address and no APN]; and 7) Asilomar Dunes Segment – within the Sunset Drive right-of-way immediately west of, and within a 10-foot utility easement located on, 214 Asilomar Boulevard, located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue and approximately 480 feet south of Jewell Avenue [APN 007-041- 004].
8) The Railroad Way segment is located within a railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues. The Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments are located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue in an area considered environmentally sensitive dune habitat and within an archeologically sensitive area. The Asilomar Dunes residential area is identified as an area of moderate to extreme biological sensitivity per Land Use Plan (LUP) Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map; and the Asilomar Dunes are considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area (LUP Section 2.4.1).
9) The sites are designated as Open Space (OS), Low Density Residential 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (LDR 1-2), and undesignated or not applicable. The Pacific Grove General Plan provides a framework for development and operation of public facilities within the city. The Public Facilities Element (Chapter 9) includes goals and polices that call for the maintenance of a level of service adequate to meet the needs of Pacific Grove residents.
Pacific Grove General Plan (1994) goals and policies apply, including but limited to, the following:
CDD Staff advised the Planning Commission that Chapter 9, Public Facilities applies, including:
Goal 2: Maintain a level of service in the City's sewage collection and disposal system adequate to meet the needs of existing and future development.
Policy 9: Incrementally repair and/or replace sewer system infrastructure to prevent excessive PGCC 9-6-2023
3 infiltration/inflow.
Program E: Prepare, adopt, and implement a sewer maintenance and replacement program.
The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), certified on March 11, 2020, applies.
It provides a framework for public infrastructure within the City's Coastal Zone. The subject segment sites are designated Open Space (OS), Low Density Residential 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (LDR 1-2), and undesignated or not applicable in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).
Applicable zoning regulations and development standards are set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapters 23.16 (R-1), 23.42 (O), 23.44 (U), and 23.90 (Coastal Implementation Plan or IP).
An application was filed with the Community Development Department (CDD) on November 30, 2022. CDD staff determined the proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system would not be exempt from the requirement to obtain a CDP and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on June 29, 2023.
PGMC section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, applies.
The proposed project involves ground disturbance in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Donna Beddow; Harris & Associates; October 2022). The report concluded that the project, as proposed, would not impact cultural resources. However, due to the sensitivity of the area and the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, and per LUP Policy CRS-2, CDD staff recommended a standard condition of approval to require archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities.
PGMC section 23.90.170, Biological Resources, applies.
CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted site inspections on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. Additionally, a qualified biologist team prepared a Biological Resources Letter Report (Emily Mastrelli and Katie Laybourn; Harris & Associates; December 7, 2022). The report, included as Appendix B to the Initial Study, concluded the project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive plants or wildlife species, and no mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources are required. Based on the above information and analysis, CDD staff prepared and circulated a draft Initial Study which concluded that potential impacts to natural habitats and resources would be less than significant. Project Design Features are included as conditions of approval to minimize or avoid potential impacts throughout the construction process.
PGMC section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, applies.
CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, applications materials, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. This review determined the sites and project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development as no above-ground structural development is proposed. In this case, CDD recommended that submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report was not warranted.
PGCC 9-6-2023
4 Per PGMC section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards applies.
CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, applications materials, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. That review determined the sites and project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development as no above-ground structural development is proposed. In this case, CDD recommended that a Coastal Hazards Report was not warranted.
BASIS AND REASONS FOR THE APPEAL:
A. LOCATION
The terminus of the segments of work in the Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments are located in an area of coastal hazards and potential sea level rise according to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
B. COASTAL HAZARDS
THE ASILOMAR DUNES SEGMENT (Sht. #6) and ARENA AVENUE SEGMENT (Sht. # 7) and as shown on (Sht. # 1), Plans Set, "Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project – Phase 9 – Coastal Zone Segments" W.O. 8462, dated July 2022 by Neill Engineers Corp. - - includes development work located in a known coastal hazards, tsunami and potential sea level rise area as shown in LCP LUP Figure 3: Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise, and in Figure 4 Potential Sea Level Rise and Flooding Pacific Grove Vulnerability Assessment. The "PROJECT SEA LEVEL RISE" Map Figure 4.8-4 Monterey - Pacific Grove ASBS Stormwater Management Project EIR, Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Report also indicates coastal flooding in the project area. (See all, below.) The Asilomar Dunes Segment proposes to abandon an existing section of the Sanitary Sewer Main (SS) and remove Sewer Manhole #853 that are located on the seaward side of Sunset Drive that may be subject to coastal hazards including wave runup, tsunamis, and sea level rise. In the same location, the project proposes to install 35 LF of new 6" PVC SS and connect to a new manhole and the main SS in the west side of Sunset Drive. (See Sheet No. 6).
NOTE: The project proposes to "Plug & Abandon" an overflow vitrified clay pipe Sanitary Sewer Line located on the west side coastal blufftop and directed to the ocean.
The Arena Avenue Segment of the Sewer connects to the Pumping Lift Station No. 16 Wet Well, with Lift Station # 16 is above ground and according to "Sewer Master Plan/Chapter 3 COLLECTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW May 2014", "Station #16 – Arena Lift Station: Arena Lift Station is a vertical-centrifugal lift station located off of Sunset Avenue near Arena Street and within the Asilomar State Park. This lift station receives flow from customers between Sunset Drive, Asilomar Avenue, and Lighthouse Avenue. The lift station discharges through an 8-inch diameter cast iron force main to manhole # 810 at the intersection of Arena Avenue and Asilomar Avenue".
PGCC 9-6-2023
5 "Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project – Phase 9 – Coastal Zone Segments", W.O. 8462, (July 2022)
Excerpt - Sheet #1 of 10
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE – SEWER SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (EXCERPT - Figure 2-1 Existing Sewer System) 2004
PGCC 9-6-2023
6 Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program Update – Final Background Report (January 12, 2015)
VULNERABILITY ASSESSEMENT
LUP Figure 3: Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise (EXCERPT) PGCC 9-6-2023
7 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, adopted March 2020
"PROJECT SEA LEVEL RISE MAP" (EXCERPT)
Figure 4.8-4 Pacific Grove ASBS Stormwater Management Project EIR, Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Report
"Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project – Phase 9 – Coastal Zone Segments", W.O. 8462, (July 2022)
Excerpt - Sheet #6 of 10
PGCC 9-6-2023
8 ENLARGED IMAGE OF WORK ON, AND SEAWARD OF SUNSET DR.
(SHEET NO. 6)
Coastal hazards and erosion in the project area is described in the California State Parks report for the "Asilomar Coast Trail Managed Retreat & Restoration Project", (August 2017) DUDEK CONSULTANTS, (Page 33):
"The most significant natural hazards along the Pacific Grove coastline are severe winter storms and waves and ongoing bluff and shoreline erosion (City of Pacific Grove, February 2017). Wave erosion of the beach is common during storms of moderate intensity and is an integral part of the natural coastal process. Eroded sand is deposited offshore but is returned to the beach by waves during periods of calm weather. Rip-rap has been as a temporary remedy to reduce ongoing erosion caused by wave action along sections of Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds, particularly in areas that threaten to undermine Sunset Drive (California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2004).
Pacific Grove is susceptible to both dune and cliff erosion. While the average dune erosion rate is approximately 2.6 feet per year, the rocky cliffs only erode at 2-4 inches annually (Monterey County, June 2015)."
The take-away is that at the rate of 2 - 4” per year, the coastal bluffs could erode up between 6 -12” in three years or as much as, 20-40” (1.5 - 3.3 feet) in ten years, and Sunset Drive is vulnerable to undermining.
PGCC 9-6-2023
9 Moreover, evidence of that fact is the observable significant erosion of the coastal bluffs, trails and stairway structures in Asilomar Coast locations including in the proposed project areas due to severe winter storm events in January and February 2023. California State Parks close off the severely damaged trails, stairs, and bluffs that remain fenced off and posted “closed” to the public. The City of Pacific Grove's Sewer Master Plan includes sanitary sewer main lines on the coastal bluffs west of Sunset Drive, and as mentioned above, and Station #16 – Arena Lift Station: Arena Lift Station is a vertical-centrifugal lift station with sanitary sewer mains located seaward of Sunset Avenue within the Asilomar State Park.
A visible example of the erosion can be assessed by comparing photographs of the beach and bluffs west of Sunset Drive at the Arena Lift Station Pump Structure, seen below:
Beach West of Arena Avenue November 26, 2015
PGCC 9-6-2023
10 Beach West of Arena Avenue July 8, 2023
PHOTO COMPARISON ANALYSIS:
Procedural Note: An “Initial Coastal Hazards Assessment” prepared by a qualified coastal consultant to assess the geomorphic, habitat, and physical process as required by Municipal Code Section 23.90.140 (b)(1) Applications for All Development Potentially Subject to Coastal Hazards would advise the applicant and City about the conditions and coastal hazards risks.
PGCC 9-6-2023
11 DEFICIENCY of CONSTRUCTION PLANS:
Sheet Number 7, Asilomar Dunes Segment fails to provide a scaled "PROFILE" drawing of the location, topography, data elevations, notes and specifications depicting the work indicated on the plan view (as shown for the other segments on the drawings).
DEFICIENT CDP PERMIT:
Permit Fact No. 5: “The subject segments are located within the City’s Coastal Zone, within an archaeologically sensitive area (per LUP Figure 7), and within an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA; per LUP Figure 5).
DEFICIENCY:
Based on LCP Land Use Plan Figure 3: Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise (2020), Segments #6 & #7 are in the prism of the mapped Coastal Hazards and Potential Sea Level Rise area.
Permit Fact No. 9. Per PGMC § 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, Community Development Department (CDD) staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, applications, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. This review determined the sites and project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development as no above-ground structural development is proposed. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.
APPELANT COMMENT:
CDD staff did not provide the Planning Commission with tangible evidence of their review, such as the appellant’s annotated maps and photographs information submitted above.
Staff did not provide a photo comparison of the site and surrounding areas of their site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023, to substantiate their opinion. Furthermore, the code requires the applicant is required to provide that information “concurrently” with the CDP application.
APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL:
The basis for this appeal includes:
1)The application submitted on November 30, 2022, failed to comply with LCP IP Sections 23.90.140 (b)(1) Applications for All Development Potentially Subject to Coastal Hazards.
(1) Initial Coastal Hazards Assessment. The applicant shall submit an initial site assessment screening to determine whether the site may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime (generally over at least the next 75 years). The screening shall include a review of CDPs issued or applied for at the subject site and immediate vicinity, technical reports, resource maps, aerial photographs, site inspection, and the LCP’s coastal hazard map in LUP Figure 3. Maps can be PGCC 9-6-2023
12 used as a resource for identification of coastal hazard areas; however, absence of mapping cannot alone be considered absence of hazard, and local site conditions must be examined at the time of coastal permit application using the best available science.
The Community Development Department (CDD) Staff "determined the sites and project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development as no above-ground structural development is proposed. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted."
APPELLANT’S COMMENTS:
• The IP ordinance does NOT state if the project site is located in a vulnerable area subject to coastal hazards and is only "above-ground" that it must comply with the code. Furthermore, coastal erosion applies to the "ground" as well as below-ground" and the sewer lines and manholes are in the ground. Moreover, it is the applicant's responsibility not the CDD, to submit the Initial Coastal Hazards Assessment.
• An initial site assessment screening is intended to determine whether the site may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime (generally over at least the next 75 years). In this case, the appellant believes it may be, therefore a Coastal Hazards Report with the permit materials as required in LCP Sections 23.90.140 (b)(2) Coastal Hazards - - "Coastal Hazards Report. Where the initial site assessment reveals that the proposed development is located on or seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or Sunset Drive, mapped within LUP Figure 3, and/or otherwise may be subject to coastal hazards over the next 75 years, a sitespecific coastal hazards report (report) shall be prepared." NOTE: Mr. Gho testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the work should be expected to last 100 years.
• The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by Mr. Daniel Gho, City of Pacific Grove Public Works Director on 3/29/2023 with a finding that appears may have been self-serving since he is also the applicant - - Mr. Gho failed to checkmark “Geology and Soils” on the Initial Checklist, as a result, the assisting consultant was not tasked with, nor did the consultant adequately address potential impacts due to coastal erosion or potential sea level rise. • As shown on the Plan Set Sheet, No. 6, the project includes at least three elements in the mapped Coastal Hazard and Potential Sea Level Rise zone and on the seaward side if Sunset Drive:
• Element No. One: The Asilomar Dunes Segment proposes to abandon an existing section of the Sanitary Sewer Main (SS) and remove Sewer Manhole #853 that is located on the seaward side of Sunset Drive.
PGCC 9-6-2023
13 • Element No. Two: In the same location, the project proposes to install 35 LF of new 6" PVC SS and connect to a new manhole and the main Sanitary Sewer line in the west of Sunset Drive. (See Sheet No. 6).
• Element No. Three: The project proposes to "Plug & Abandon" an overflow Sanitary Sewer pipe that is seaward of Sunset Drive, apparently on California State Park Lands, on the coastal blufftop which flows into the ocean.
Thus, it may be a “Sewer Outfall”.
Google Maps and Google Earth, Aerial Images appear to show a pipe a channel that was cut into the rock formations on the beach and in the intertidal area of the ocean. The City’s Parcel Map viewer also shows that pipe in the same location to be directly seaward of the sewer easement on Parcel No. The pipe can be viewed from the land and beach.
GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE (9/7/2022)
PGCC 9-6-2023
14 GOOGLE EARTH – ENLARGED IMAGE (9/7/2022)
CITY OF PACIFIC ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP (Esri) (2023)
PGCC 9-6-2023
15 APPELLANT’S COMMENT:
Abandoning the overflow and outfall pipe(s) on the coastal bluffs, beaches and in the ocean without removing it, is equivalent to placing them in those locations.
The proposed installation of a new Manhole on the west side of Sunset Drive is in the Coastal Hazard and Sea Level Rise areas as shown on Figure 4.8-4 Pacific Grove ASBS Stormwater Management Project EIR, Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Report, LCP Land Use Plan Figure 3, Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise, and Pacific Grove Vulnerability Assessment Figure 4. Potential Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding.
CONCLUSION:
The project’s scope of development work raises substantial issues and is inconsistent with the following the policies in LCP Land Use Plan: (INF-10 &HAZ-8,9&12, MAR-1,3,5; SCE1,2,3,4,6; BIO-1,2,3,12; LUD-1; INF-4,5,10; and, PRA-1,2,5(I); and, does not conform to the following ordinances in the LCP Implementation Plan: PGMC Sections: 23.90.140 (b)(1) & (2)(A)(B)(C)(D).23.90.150(a)(b), 23.90.160 (a)(b), 23.90.170 (a)(b):23.90.210(a); 23.90.220(a).
Therefore, pursuant to PGMC Section 23.90.080, the following required CDP Findings necessary to approve the proposed project cannot be made:
To approve a CDP, the review authority must find that the development, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable LCP policies and standards, including making all the following findings that themselves shall be based on upon substantial evidence:
(a) LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP. (b) Public Views. The project protects or enhances public views. (c) Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats and natural resources consistent with LCP.
(e) Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast. (g) Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.
(h) Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable. [Ord. 20-023 § 2, 2020].
Moreover, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did not analyze or address the coastal hazards and sea level rise over the next 75 years, therefore, it is inaccurate and inadequate to mitigate the significant adverse impacts of the proposed developement.
As Public Works Director, Dan Gho told the Planning Commission at their hearing of this item: "We need to start identifying what we want to do with all of our coastline infrastructure, and not just piecemeal it with each individual project like this..." (Minute marker: 2:44:48) Thus, the appellant agrees this is a piecemeal project and that Pacific Grove's PGCC 9-6-2023
16 coastline infrastructure must be analyzed on a comprehensive basis, including consideration of the impacts and erosion due to storm surf, sea level rise, and tsunamis.
Therefore, I request the City Council to accept this appeal and challenge to the project’s IS/MND.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tony Ciani
Tony Ciani, Resident
220 Walnut Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT: APPEAL FORM
Cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Central Coast, Coastal Commission
PGCC 9-6-2023
17 PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE APPROVING FILE NUMBER CDP 22-0318 FOR THE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT
OF THREE SEGMENTS OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
LOCATED AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS.
FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department (applicant) proposes the repair and replacement of three Coastal Zone segments of the City’s existing wastewater collection system to ensure continued safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents of Pacific Grove.
2. The subject sites are located at multiple locations in the City of Pacific Grove (three segments); including the following: Railroad Way Segment – an approximate 540 linear foot section within and at the north end of the railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues; no address and no Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN); Arena Avenue Segment – an approximate 340 linear foot section of Arena Avenue within the road rightof-way between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue; no address and no APN; and Asilomar Dunes Segment – within the Sunset Drive right-of-way immediately west of, and within an existing 10-foot utility easement located on, 214 Asilomar Boulevard, located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue and approximately 480 feet south of Jewell Avenue (APN 007-041-004).
3. As noted in Fact 2, only one segment (the Asilomar Dunes Segment) has an associated APN of 007-041-004. The other two segments (Arena Avenue and Railroad Way) do not have associated APNs.
4. The subject segments have various land use designations such as Low Density Residential 1.0 du/ac, Open Space, and undesignated in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (per LUP Figure 6).
5. The subject segments have zoning classifications of O, R-1-B-4, and unclassified.
6. The subject segments are located within the City’s Coastal Zone, within an archaeologically sensitive area (per LUP Figure 7), and within an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA; per LUP Figure 5).
7. The subject segments are not located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) nor listed on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
8. Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and 23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, Community Development Department (CDD) staff determined the proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system would not be exempt from the requirement to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on June 29, 2023.
9. Detailed Project Description.
PGCC 9-6-2023
a. Railroad Way segment - includes approximately 537 linear feet of pipeline replacement via trenching within the former railroad right-of-way.
Specifically, planned improvements in this segment include the following:
replacement of 245 linear feet of 6” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with 8” polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline, reconstruction of a manhole approximately 92 feet from manhole 890, reconstruction of manhole 888, installation of 292 linear feet of 8” PVC pipeline, the plugging and in place abandonment of 292 linear feet of 6” VCP pipeline, and the construction of a new manhole approximately 100 feet from manhole 888.
b. Asilomar Dunes segment - includes improvements within an existing 10- foot utility easement in dune habitat between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Ave, as well as within the Sunset Drive right-of-way. Planned work within the Sunset Drive roadway includes the following: replacement of pipeline that is at a 45-degree angle with a new straight section of 35 linear feet of 6” PVC, construction of a new manhole, removal of manhole 853, and plugging and abandonment of the angled section of 6” VCP pipeline.
Planned work within the utility easement that extends through dune habitat and private property, between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue, includes the following: a 9 linear foot spot repair located approximately 69 linear feet from manhole 853A, construction of a new manhole (#854) approximately 167 feet from manhole 853A, reconstruction of manhole 855, and replacement of 95 linear feet of 6” VCP with 6” PVC via trenching.
c. Arena Avenue segment - includes excavation of 2 receiving pits and replacement of approximately 332 linear feet of 6” VCP with 8” highdensity polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline (via pipe bursting) within the Arena Avenue right-of-way.
The total length of pipeline installation (via trenching and pipe bursting) for all three segments would total approximately 1,008 linear feet and involve a grand total of approximately 4,380 square feet of surface disturbance area.
10. Per PGMC § 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, Community Development Department (CDD) staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, applications, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. This review determined the sites and project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development. No aboveground structural development is proposed. The proposed repairs will all be located below ground, thereby making the project less susceptible to coastal hazards such as wave run up, tsunamis, etc. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.
11. Per PGMC § 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system would not create any new impervious surfaces.
12. Per PGMC § 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted site visits on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. This review determined the proposed repair and replacement of three PGCC 9-6-2023
segments of the wastewater collection system, due to their short construction duration and no permanent above-ground structural development, would not adversely impact public views.
13. Per PGMC § 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted site inspections on October 6, 2022, and April 27, 2023. Additionally, a qualified biologist team prepared a Biological Resources Letter Report (Emily Mastrelli and Katie Laybourn; Harris & Associates; December 7, 2022). The report, included as Appendix B to the Initial Study, concluded the project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive plants or wildlife species, and no mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources are required. Based on the above information and analysis, CDD staff prepared and circulated a draft Initial Study which concluded that potential impacts to natural habitats and resources would be less than significant. Project Design Features have been included as conditions of approval to minimize or avoid potential impacts throughout the construction process.
14. Per PGMC § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project involves ground disturbance in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Donna Beddow; Harris & Associates; October 2022). The report concluded that the project, as proposed, would not impact cultural resources. However, due to the sensitivity of the area and the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, and per Land Use Plan Policy CRS-2, the City will apply a standard condition of approval to require archaeological monitoring during all ground disturbing activities.
15. Per PGMC § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project does not involve above-ground structural development or permanent changes to a setting or location; therefore, an historic report is not warranted. Additionally, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because this type of resource does not occur within the project area.
16. The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department (PW), as Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15063(a) and 15063(b)(2). The Initial Study is on file in the offices of PW and CDD, and is hereby incorporated by reference. CDD, located at 300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor, Pacific Grove, California, 93950, is the custodian of documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision to adopt the Negative Declaration is based.
17. The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project – Phase 9 – Coastal Zone Segments was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; filed with the County Clerk on March 30, 2023; and circulated for public review from March 30 through May 1, 2023 (State Clearinghouse Number 2023030780). No public comment was received and no public agencies submitted comments.
18. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and LUP Policy CRS-1, PW initiated consultation via notification letters with local Native American tribes on November 17, 2022. The first consultation meeting with the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County was actually held on November 8, 2022, and with the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation on November 15, 2022.
PGCC 9-6-2023
19. The City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission (PC) considered the IS/ND and reviewed the proposed project at a noticed public hearing on July 13, 2023. The PC voted 6 – 1 to adopt the IS/ND and to approve CDP 22-0318.
20. On July 17, 2023, the appellant submitted a timely appeal of the PC’s decision to adopt the IS/ND and approve CDP 22-0318.
21. Pursuant to the appeal, the City of Pacific Grove City Council considered the IS/ND and reviewed the proposed project at a noticed public hearing on September 6, 2023.
FINDINGS
For a Coastal Development Permit per PGMC Section 23.90.080
1. LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP. (Local Coastal Program) As proposed and conditioned, the proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system meets the requirements of the LCP including, but not limited to, the applicable Coastal Resource Protection Standards (PGMC § 23.90.130) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and the Biological, Cultural, Scenic, and Community Design policies of the Land Use Plan (LUP). These standards and policies are addressed in the Facts above and in the following findings.
2. Public Views. The project protects or enhances public views.
The proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system, due to the short construction duration and no permanent above-ground structural development, would not adversely impact public views. Per LUP Policy SCE-6, all proposed utility repairs will be located underground or outside of public view. Therefore, per PGMC § 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, a site-specific visual analysis is not required in this case.
3. Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats, and natural resources consistent with the LCP.
The repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system, as proposed and conditioned, will have less than significant impacts on natural habitats or resources. The project is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC § 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
4. Design Consistency. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed development is consistent with applicable LCP design requirements, including design plans and area plans incorporated into the LCP.
The proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system does not involve permanent above-ground structural development; therefore, this finding is not applicable.
5. Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast.
As proposed and conditioned, the repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system would not adversely impact public access to or along the coast. Condition No. 10 has been applied to protect public access and ensure retention of emergency access during construction.
PGCC 9-6-2023
6. Visitor Serving. The project supports the LCP goal of providing for visitor-serving needs as appropriate, including providing low and no cost visitor and recreational facilities.
As proposed, the repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system does not involve visitor-serving needs or facilities; therefore, this finding is not applicable.
7. Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.
As located, the site zoning classifications and land use designations are consistent with the proposed project.
8. Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.
The proposed repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system does not involve permanent above-ground structural development; therefore, this finding is not applicable. See also Fact Nos. 10 – 15 and supporting information, and Finding Nos. 2 and 3 above.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On the basis of the whole record before the City of Pacific Grove City Council, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project as designed and conditioned will have a significant effect on the environment. Also, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact. The City will implement proposed project design features, best management practices, and standard conditions of approval that avoid or minimize potential effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the Public Works Department prepared a Negative Declaration (ND), and the ND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
In approving the permit, the following conditions of approval are imposed and deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings cited above.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void two (2) years from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.
2. Conformance to Plans. Development and uses of the sites shall conform to the approved plans for the “Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project – Phase 9 – Coastal Zone Segments”, dated July 2022, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes. Minor plan changes shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and/or Public Works Director as appropriate, prior to implementation. Major plan changes may also require review and approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Project revisions may require additional CEQA analysis.
PGCC 9-6-2023
3. Construction Compliance. All construction shall occur in general compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff, and may require subsequent Planning Commission and/or City Council approval.
4. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land and bind to all future owners and possessors of the subject property, unless amended. Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the Zoning Code.
5. Archaeological/Tribal Monitoring. A qualified archaeological monitor and tribal monitor shall be present to observe all soil disturbance for all grading and excavation activities. If at any time, potentially significant resources or intact features are discovered, the monitor(s) shall temporarily halt work until the find can be evaluated.
6. Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. If such artifacts are unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted until the item(s) can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation will be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented prior to recommencement of work.
7. Archaeology and Inadvertent Discovery. When human remains or other cultural artifacts are exposed, the Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 requires that no further excavation or disturbance occurs in the area and that the county coroner is called so that the coroner can verify that the remains are not subject to medical jurisprudence. Within 24 hours of notification, the coroner calls the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains are known or thought to be Native American. The Native American Heritage Commission selects the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from a rotating list of MLDs.
The MLD has 24 hours to respond. All work will halt with a 50-yard radius until an osteologist can examine the remains, and a treatment plan for any said remains has been provided according to the MLD.
8. Project Design Features (PDFs). The following PDFs shall be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented during construction:
a. PDF-1: Focused Rare Plant Clearance Survey and Avoidance. Before grounddisturbing activities, including digging, clearing, grubbing, and grading, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction sensitive plant survey within 100 feet of the project disturbance areas. If sensitive plant species are identified by the qualified person, they shall flag the extent of each species patch or individual in the survey area for avoidance during the pre-construction survey. If sensitive plant species are observed in the impact area during the pre-construction sensitive plant survey or cannot be avoided during implementation, individuals shall be counted, and permanent impacts shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio in suitable habitat outside the impact areas as applicable. b. PDF-2: Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing. Before ground-disturbing activities, including digging, clearing, grubbing, and grading, a qualified person shall flag and/or install avoidance fencing around the outer limits of the disturbed dune scrub habitat and sensitive Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees. The flagging and installed avoidance fencing shall remain in place through the end of construction.
PGCC 9-6-2023
c. PDF-3: Water Quality Protection Measures.
1. Standard construction best management practices for erosion and sediment control, such as the use of silt fencing, shall be implemented to prevent wind and water erosion and to minimize subsequent sedimentation to nearby sensitive habitats and potential aquatic features.
2. The project shall implement the following practices to provide effective temporary and final erosion control during construction as needed:
a. Preserve existing vegetation where required and when feasible. b. Control the area of soil-disturbing operations so the construction contractor can implement erosion control best management practices quickly and effectively. c. Stabilize non-active areas within 14 days of cessation of construction activities or sooner if stipulated by local requirements.
d. Control erosion in concentrated flow paths by applying temporary erosion-control blankets, check dams, erosion-control seeding, or alternate methods. e. Prior to the completion of construction, apply permanent erosion control to any remaining disturbed soil areas.
f. Maintain sufficient erosion-control materials on site.
3. The following temporary sediment-control best management practices shall be implemented in conformance with the following guidelines and in accordance with the standard best management practice guidance:
a. Silt Fence: As practical and necessary, silt fencing may be placed at the perimeter of disturbed site areas to mitigate discharge of sediment from site stormwater flows. b. Weed-Free, Plastic-Free (No Monofilament) Fiber Rolls: Fiber rolls may be used for several different applications, including but not limited to perimeter control, grade break and separation, and alternate check dam. They shall not be used on paved or hardscape media. Temporary fiber rolls installed to control erosion and sedimentation during construction shall be removed once construction is complete. c. Stabilized Construction Entrances and Exits: Stabilized construction entrances and exits shall be placed at ingress and egress points of the disturbance area.
4. Construction padding material, if required, shall be free of any weed seeds, contaminants, or pollutants.
5. No debris, silt, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement, or concrete, or washings thereof; oil or petroleum products; or other organic or earthen material from any maintenance, construction, or associated activity of any nature shall be allowed to enter or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into sensitive habitats and potential aquatic resources in and surrounding the work areas.
6. Construction equipment with visible mud or dirt cakes on tracks, wheels, and undercarriage shall be power washed at a minimum of 100 feet from the limits of work areas to prevent weeds from entering the project site.
7. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be repaired and refueled a minimum of 100 feet from the limits of sensitive habitats and potential aquatic resources within and surrounding the work areas, including the disturbed dune scrub, to the maximum extent feasible. If refueling or repairing equipment or vehicles in or near sensitive habitats or aquatic resources within or surrounding the work areas is unavoidable, appropriate secondary containment shall be employed to prevent spills from entering these sensitive PGCC 9-6-2023
areas. Drip pans and spill containment materials shall always be present and accessible on the construction site.
d. PDF-4: Nesting Bird Survey. No grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation from the project site shall occur during the general raptor and bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31). If grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation cannot feasibly occur outside the general bird breeding season, a qualified person shall perform a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 1 week prior to the start of vegetation grubbing, trimming, or clearing to determine if active bird nests are present in the affected areas. Should an active bird nest be located, the qualified person shall establish a buffer and direct vegetation clearing away from the nest until it has been determined that the young have fledged or the nest has failed. If no nesting birds (including nest building or other breeding or nesting behavior) are in the construction area, grubbing, trimming, or clearing shall proceed.
9. Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project shall implement BMPs as identified on page 6 of the Final Initial Study.
10. Temporary Traffic Handling Plan (TTHP). Per PGMC Section 23.90.210.B.2, the Public Works Department shall prepare and implement a TTHP to protect public access (e.g., parking and/or traffic circulation) and ensure retention of emergency access during construction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The Council determines that each of the Facts and Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Facts and Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.
2. The Council adopts a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.
3. The Council denies the appeal, and affirms the decision of the Planning Commission to approve CDP 22-0318.
4. The Council APPROVES this permit (Application No. 22-0318) to allow the repair and replacement of three segments of the wastewater collection system located at multiple locations.
5. The required Findings and Conditions of Approval are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.
6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6th day of September, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PGCC 9-6-2023
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PHASE 9 – COASTAL ZONE SEGMENTS
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared by:
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 FOREST AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
Technical Assistance Provided by:
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
450 LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE 103
SALINAS, CA 93901
MARCH 29, 2023
ADOPTED BY CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION ON: JULY 13, 2023 PGCC 9-6-2023
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form .............................................................................................. 4
1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Sources: ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................................ 13 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Sources: ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
3. Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 15
4. Biological Resources .............................................................................................................................. 17 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 18
5. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 24 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 25
6. Energy ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 26
7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................... 26 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 28
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 28 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 29
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 29 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 31
10. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 31 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 33
11. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 33 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 34
12. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................ 34 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 34
13. Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 35
14. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................ 36 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 36
15. Public Services ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 37
16. Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 38 PGCC 9-6-2023
3 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 38
17. Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 39
18. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 39 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 40
19. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................ 41 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 41
20. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 43
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................................... 44 Figures
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Area of Project Effect
Note: Figures 1 – 8 referenced in the Biological Resources section are located in Appendix B, Biological Resources Letter Report.
Appendices
Appendix A – Plan Set
Appendix B – Biological Resources Letter Report
Appendix C – Cultural Resources Report (cover page only)
PGCC 9-6-2023
4 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 FOREST AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
TELEPHONE (831) 648-3190 FAX (831) 648-3184
INITIAL STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvement Project – Phase 9 – Coastal Zone Segments (Project or proposed project)
2. Permit Type(s): Coastal Development Permit (CDP); Planning File No. 22-0318
3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pacific Grove, 300 Forest Ave., Pacific Grove, CA 93950
4. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number: Daniel Gho, Director, Public Works Department, T: 831-648-5722, E: [email protected]
5. Project Location: The Project includes the following three segments or project sites. a. Railroad Way Segment – an approximate 540 linear foot section within and at the north end of the railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues; no address and no Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)
b. Arena Avenue Segment – an approximate 340 linear foot section of Arena Avenue within the road right-of-way between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue; no address and no APN
c. Asilomar Dunes Segment – Within the Sunset Drive right-of-way immediately west of, and within a 10-foot utility easement located on, 214 Asilomar Boulevard, located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue and approximately 480 feet south of Jewell Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, CA. APN 007-041-004 See Figure 1, Vicinity Map, and Figure 2, Area of Project Effect for the location of the three project segments, which are all located in the Coastal Zone within the City of Pacific Grove, Monterey County.
6. Project Applicant(s): City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department
7. General Plan (GP)/Land Use Plan (LUP) Designations:
a. Railroad Way Segment – Open Space (OS)
b. Arena Avenue Segment – NA
c. Asilomar Dunes Segment – NA and Low Density Residential (LDR 1-2), 1.0 DU/AC
8. Zoning:
a. Railroad Way Segment – Open Space (O)
b. Arena Avenue Segment – NA
c. Asilomar Dunes Segment – NA and R-1-B-4
9. Description of the Project: The City of Pacific Grove (City) Public Works Department proposes to repair and replace the following three segments of the wastewater collection system located in the coastal zone: Railroad Way, Asilomar Dunes, and Arena Avenue PGCC 9-6-2023
5 (Project). The purpose of the Project is to ensure safe and reliable public wastewater collection service to the residents of Pacific Grove.
Project Segments
The Railroad Way segment includes approximately 537 linear feet of pipeline replacement via trenching within the former railroad right-of-way. Specifically, planned improvements in this segment include the following: replacement of 245 linear feet of 6” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with 8” polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline, reconstruction of a manhole approximately 92 feet from manhole 890, reconstruction of manhole 888, installation of 292 linear feet of 8” PVC pipeline, the plugging and in place abandonment of 292 linear feet of 6” VCP pipeline, and the construction of a new manhole approximately 100 feet from manhole 888.
The Asilomar Dunes segment includes improvements within a 10-foot utility easement in dune habitat between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Ave, as well as within the Sunset Drive right-of-way. Planned work within the Sunset Drive roadway includes the following:
replacement of pipeline that is at a 45-degree angle with a new straight section of 35 linear feet of 6” PVC, construction of a new manhole, removal of manhole 853, and plugging and abandonment of the angled section of 6” VCP pipeline. Planned work within the utility easement that extends through dune habitat and private property, between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue, includes the following: a 9 linear foot spot repair located approximately 69 linear feet from manhole 853A, construction of a new manhole (#854) approximately 167 feet from manhole 853A, reconstruction of manhole 855, and replacement of 95 linear feet of 6” VCP with 6” PVC via trenching.
The Arena Avenue segment includes excavation of 2 receiving pits and replacement of approximately 332 linear feet of 6” VCP with 8” high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline (via pipe bursting) within the Arena Avenue right-of-way.
The project would avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive resources, including the dune habitat and Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees, to the maximum extent feasible. See Appendix A, Plan Set, for a detailed description of the proposed improvements in each segment.
The total length of pipeline installation (via trenching and pipe bursting) for all three segments would total approximately 1,008 linear feet and involve a grand total of approximately 4,380 square feet of surface disturbance area.
Project Construction
Construction duration is anticipated to be 6 weeks total (less for each individual segment), and may occur during peak summer months; therefore, to minimize or avoid potential construction impacts to traffic capacity and/or public access, the City shall prepare and implement a Temporary Traffic Handling Plan pursuant to PGMC section 23.90.210(b)(2). In accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction activity would be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday.
During construction, the project would use standard construction equipment, such as excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, and compactors. There would be no pile driving or other high impact activity that would result in high levels of noise or vibration. Construction equipment and materials would be staged in disturbed or paved areas with containment measures for fuels or other potentially hazardous materials and away from drainages.
PGCC 9-6-2023
6 The Project includes implementation of the following best management practices (BMPs):
Standard dust control practices, such as periodic watering, will be implemented as needed during construction.
All construction equipment will comply with the California Air Resources Board’s measures to reduce fuel-consumption, such as imposing limits on idling and requiring older engines and equipment to be retired, replaced, or repowered. All diesel-powered equipment will use California ultralow sulfur diesel fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 15 pounds per day by weight to minimize emissions of sulfurous gases.
Construction equipment will be properly maintained and checked for potential leaks of potentially hazardous fuels (e.g., gas, oil).
Construction equipment will remain within developed portions of the project sites (e.g., paved roads, maintained access roads), and activities set to occur outside these locations would be minor and temporary in nature.
Water quality protection measures will be implemented during construction (see PDF-3 below).
A construction traffic management plan will be prepared to address vehicle movement during temporary street closures, whereby emergency access will be retained or clear alternative routes will be available. All disturbed areas will be restored to existing conditions. Restoration of the dune habitat in the Asilomar Dunes segment includes replacement of vegetation removed with native species.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The project would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval, including for cultural resources (e.g., archaeological and tribal monitoring).
Project Design Features (Environmental Commitments)
In addition to the construction related BMPs and Conditions of Approval described above, the City would implement the following measures to protect biological resources. The PDFs would be incorporated into the construction plans.
PDF-1: Focused Rare Plant Clearance Survey and Avoidance. Before ground-disturbing activities, including digging, clearing, grubbing, and grading, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction sensitive plant survey within 100 feet of the project disturbance areas. If sensitive plant species are identified by the qualified person, they shall flag the extent of each species patch or individual in the survey area for avoidance during the pre-construction survey. If sensitive plant species are observed in the impact area during the pre-construction sensitive plant survey or cannot be avoided during implementation, individuals shall be counted, and permanent impacts shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio in suitable habitat outside the impact areas as applicable.
PDF-2: Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing. Before ground-disturbing activities, including digging, clearing, grubbing, and grading, a qualified person shall flag and/or install avoidance fencing around the outer limits of the disturbed dune scrub habitat and sensitive Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees. The flagging and installed avoidance fencing shall remain in place through the end of construction.
PDF-3: Water Quality Protection Measures.
PGCC 9-6-2023
7 1. Standard construction best management practices for erosion and sediment control, such as the use of silt fencing, shall be implemented to prevent wind and water erosion and to minimize subsequent sedimentation to nearby sensitive habitats and potential aquatic features.
2. The project shall implement the following practices to provide effective temporary and final erosion control during construction as needed:
a. Preserve existing vegetation where required and when feasible. b. Control the area of soil-disturbing operations so the construction contractor can implement erosion control best management practices quickly and effectively. c. Stabilize non-active areas within 14 days of cessation of construction activities or sooner if stipulated by local requirements.
d. Control erosion in concentrated flow paths by applying temporary erosion-control blankets, check dams, erosion-control seeding, or alternate methods. e. Prior to the completion of construction, apply permanent erosion control to any remaining disturbed soil areas.
f. Maintain sufficient erosion-control materials on site.
3. The following temporary sediment-control best management practices shall be implemented in conformance with the following guidelines and in accordance with the standard best management practice guidance:
a. Silt Fence: As practical and necessary, silt fencing may be placed at the perimeter of disturbed site areas to mitigate discharge of sediment from site stormwater flows. b. Weed-Free, Plastic-Free (No Monofilament) Fiber Rolls: Fiber rolls may be used for several different applications, including but not limited to perimeter control, grade break and separation, and alternate check dam. They shall not be used on paved or hardscape media. Temporary fiber rolls installed to control erosion and sedimentation during construction shall be removed once construction is complete. c. Stabilized Construction Entrances and Exits: Stabilized construction entrances and exits shall be placed at ingress and egress points of the disturbance area.
4. Construction padding material, if required, shall be free of any weed seeds, contaminants, or pollutants.
5. No debris, silt, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement, or concrete, or washings thereof; oil or petroleum products; or other organic or earthen material from any maintenance, construction, or associated activity of any nature shall be allowed to enter or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into sensitive habitats and potential aquatic resources in and surrounding the work areas.
6. Construction equipment with visible mud or dirt cakes on tracks, wheels, and undercarriage shall be power washed at a minimum of 100 feet from the limits of work areas to prevent weeds from entering the project site.
7. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be repaired and refueled a minimum of 100 feet from the limits of sensitive habitats and potential aquatic resources within and surrounding the work areas, including the disturbed dune scrub, to the maximum extent feasible. If refueling or repairing equipment or vehicles in or near sensitive habitats or aquatic resources within or surrounding the work areas is unavoidable, appropriate secondary containment shall be employed to prevent spills from entering these sensitive areas. Drip pans and spill containment materials shall always be present and accessible on the construction site.
PDF-4: Nesting Bird Survey. No grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation from the project site shall occur during the general raptor and bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31). If grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation cannot feasibly occur outside the general bird breeding season, a qualified person shall perform a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 1 week prior to the start of vegetation grubbing, trimming, PGCC 9-6-2023
8 or clearing to determine if active bird nests are present in the affected areas. Should an active bird nest be located, the qualified person shall establish a buffer and direct vegetation clearing away from the nest until it has been determined that the young have fledged or the nest has failed. If no nesting birds (including nest building or other breeding or nesting behavior) are in the construction area, grubbing, trimming, or clearing shall proceed.
10. Surrounding land uses and setting: The three project segments are located in established residential neighborhoods, designated and zoned for residential use, within the City.
The Railroad Way segment is located within a railroad right-of-way between Jewell and Pico Avenues. The Asilomar Dunes and Arena Avenue segments are located between Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue in an area considered environmentally sensitive dune habitat and within an archaeologically sensitive area. The Asilomar Dunes residential area is identified as an area of moderate to extreme biological sensitivity per Land Use Plan Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map; and the Asilomar Dunes are considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area (Land Use Plan Section 2.4.1).
The City of Pacific Grove is located on the Monterey Peninsula adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, and is bounded by the ocean on its western, northern, and eastern edges. The Mediterranean climate of the region and the coastal influence produce moderate temperatures year-round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project will require approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission. No other planning entitlement approvals or other agency approvals will be required.
12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Yes. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, City of Pacific Grove Public Works staff initiated consultation via notification letters with local Native American tribes on November 17, 2022. Consultation meetings were held with the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County on November 8, 2022, and with the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation (OCEN) on November 15, 2022. See Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, below for additional information.
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review and identify and address potential impacts. Information on specific on-site cultural resources may be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. It should be noted that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
PGCC 9-6-2023
PGCC 9-6-2023
10 CEQA Environmental Checklist
This checklist identifies the potential physical effects the Project could have on the environment. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the project indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), not the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
PGCC 9-6-2023
11 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.
PGCC 9-6-2023
12 1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A & C: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surrounding area.
The three (3) project sites are located in a residential area near the coast. There are some views of the ocean from the public roadways, including Arena Avenue and Asilomar Boulevard. The ocean is generally not visible from Railroad Way. The Railroad Way segment is highly disturbed and previously developed as part of a former railroad right-of-way. The Arena Avenue segment is within a public street. The Asilomar Dunes segment is within a utility easement on a parcel developed with a single-family residence and with dune habitat.
All three sites are located within the Coastal Zone and subject to the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), which includes the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (PGMC 23.90). Per LUP Policy SCE-6, all utilities will be located underground or outside of public view. Per LUP Policy SCE-10, the trees within the railroad right-of-way will be protected and retained as the project would not impact this resource. Per LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), the Arena Avenue segment and the Asilomar Dunes segment are located within a Scenic View area.
PGCC 9-6-2023
13 The project includes improvements to approximately 1,008 linear feet of the City’s wastewater collection system, which would result in temporary disturbance to approximately 4,380 square feet of surface. The visual character at each of the 3 sites would be altered during construction, but this would be temporary and for a short duration. Once construction is complete, the improvements would be primarily underground and not visible (with the exception of replacement and new manholes covers that would be visible). Further, as described in Section 9, the Project includes restoration of the disturbed surface, including the dune habitat in the Asilomar Dunes segment, to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect a scenic vista or degrade the visual character or quality of public views, and the impact would be less than significant.
Items B: The project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. There are no designated state scenic highways within the City, based on the California Scenic Highway Program. The only state highway eligible for scenic designation within the City is Highway 68, which is not in the project vicinity. The nearest project segment to Highway 68 is Arena Avenue, which is over 3,000 linear feet (0.57 mile) north of the end point of Highway 68 at Asilomar Avenue.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Item D: The project consists of improvements to the underground wastewater collection system and does not include any features that would introduce a new source of light. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Sources:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Program. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/od-county-scenichwys-2015-a11y.pdf City of Pacific Grove, LCP Implementation Plan, Coastal Community Design, §23.90.180.C.4.
Chapter 23.90 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (codepublishing.com)
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
PGCC 9-6-2023
14 B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Items A - E: According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the City of Pacific Grove is located on land identified as urban and built-up land and other land. The 3 project sites (Railroad Way, Arena Avenue, Asilomar Dunes) are not farmland, other agricultural land, or forest land. There are no agricultural or forest resources within or surrounding the project sites, and no trees would be removed to implement the project.
Accordingly, the project would not: A) convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; B) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; C) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production; D) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or E) involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Therefore, the project would result in no impact to agriculture or forest resources.
Sources:
California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp
PGCC 9-6-2023
15 3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D. Result in other emissions (such as those relating to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
Item A: The City of Pacific Grove, including the three project sites, is within the Monterey Bay region of the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). MBARD is responsible for developing regulations governing emissions of air pollution, permitting and inspecting stationary sources, monitoring air quality, and air quality planning activities within the NCCAB. MBARD’s 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlines the air quality regulations for the MBARD region. MBARD’s 2008 CEQA Guidelines assist local jurisdictions in determining consistency and impacts levels.
The NCCAB does not meet state standards for fine particulate matter (PM10); however, ozone and its precursors (reactive organic gases [ROGs] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) remain a pollutant of concern in the MBARD AQMP. Therefore, the regional pollutants of concern are ozone precursors and PM10.
The project would improve approximately 1,008 linear feet of the City’s wastewater collection system at three (3) sites, which would result in approximately 4,380 square feet of ground disturbance and emissions from construction equipment.
PGCC 9-6-2023
16 Construction projects using typical construction equipment, such as excavators, dump trucks, scrapers, bulldozers, compactors, and front-end loaders that temporarily emit precursors of ozone (i.e., volatile organic compounds [VOC] or oxides of nitrogen [NOx]), are accommodated in the emission inventories of state and federally required air plans and would not have a significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of ozone ambient air quality standard (AAQS) (MBUAPCD 2008).
The Project would require typical construction equipment. Project construction may result in a short term, localized decrease in air quality due to generation of PM10. However, as stated in Section 9, standard dust control best management practices (BMPs), such as periodic watering, would be implemented during construction to reduce the generation of PM10. Construction emissions are not expected to prevent long-term attainment or maintenance of the ozone and particulate matter standards within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB).
Project operation would be the same as existing conditions. The project would not result in any new long-term operational emissions from vehicle trips (mobile emissions) or the use of natural gas (energy source emissions), consumer products, architectural coatings, or landscape maintenance equipment (area source emissions). No stationary sources would be constructed that would be long-term permanent sources of emissions.
Therefore, the project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the applicable AQMP, and the impact would be less than significant.
Item B: As described above, the primary pollutants of concern for the NCCAB are ozone and PM10.
Project construction would have a limited and temporary potential to contribute to existing violations of California air quality standards for ozone and PM10, primarily through diesel engine exhaust and fugitive dust. According to the MBARD CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant shortterm construction impact if the project would emit more than 82 pounds per day or more of PM10.
Further, the MBARD CEQA Guidelines set a screening threshold of 2.2 acres of construction earthmoving per day. In other words, if a project results in less than 2.2 acres of earthmoving, the project is assumed to be below the 82 pounds per day threshold of significance. As stated in Section 9, the project would result in approximately 4,380 square feet (0.1 acre) of total disturbance area and would not exceed the 2.2 acre daily earthmoving screening threshold. Following construction, operation of the project would not result in a new source of criteria pollutant emissions. Because the project would not exceed MBARD’s thresholds and is consistent with the AQMP, as discussed above, it would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Item C: MBARD defines sensitive receptors for CEQA purposes as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) schools; daycare centers; and health care facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. Sensitive receptors also include long term care hospitals, hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing. The residences adjacent to the three project sites are considered sensitive receptors. However, the project would not generate substantial pollutant concentrations, as described above. As stated in Section 9, the construction activities would occur during the day, Monday through Friday, for approximately six weeks total for all three segments together. Therefore, the individual receptor exposure time would be substantially less. Once construction is completed, there would be no additional operational emissions. Therefore, the impact to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Item D: Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would repair and replace sections of the existing wastewater collection lines. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in exposure of nearby receptors to wastewater PGCC 9-6-2023
17 odors, and the project does not include any new uses that would be associated with objectionable odors. There could be short-term, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines. However, California ultralow sulfur diesel fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm by weight would be used in all diesel-powered equipment, which minimizes emissions of sulfurous gases (sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and carbonyl sulfide). Because the project sites are in a coastal area with breezes from Monterey Bay, it is likely that any construction-related odors would disperse and dissipate before causing substantial odors at the closest sensitive receptors. Any construction-related odors would be short-term and would cease upon completion. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant operation.
Sources:
MBUAPCD, 2008. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Prepared by the MBUAPCD, Adopted October 1995, Revised:
February 1997, August 1998, December 1999, September 2000, September 2002, June 2004 and February 2008.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
B. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
D. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
PGCC 9-6-2023
18 IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
F. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
IMPACT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is based on the results of the database review, field survey, and habitat assessment conducted by Harris & Associates (Harris) qualified biologist on October 6, 2022. A full accounting of the results of the database review and habitat assessment is provided in the Biological Resources Letter Report prepared for the project (Appendix B, Biological Resources Letter Report). Figures 1 – 8 referenced in the discussion below are located in Appendix B.
The field survey of the Area of Project Effect (APE) with a 100-foot biological resources survey area buffer, herein referred to as the “survey area” (Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Survey Area). The survey was conducted by walking meandering transects throughout the survey area, mapping vegetation communities, and evaluating the potential for occurrence of sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered plant and wildlife species. Vegetation mapping was recorded in the field using the ArcGIS Collector application with an aerial image of the survey area. The survey area is approximately 13.5 acres. Of that total, approximately 3.2 acres is disturbed dune scrub, 4.1 acres is disturbed (ruderal) habitat, and 6.2 acres is urban/developed land (Figure 3, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types). The survey area includes one sensitive vegetation community, disturbed dune scrub (Figure 3). Two sensitive plant species were observed in the survey area, and three sensitive plant species were determined to have high potential to occur. No sensitive wildlife species were observed in the survey area; however, two sensitive wildlife species were determined to have high potential to occur. Discussions of these sensitive species and potential impacts are discussed under Item 4(a).
The results of the database review provide information on any permitting requirements and potential constraints to project development due to the presence (or lack thereof) of sensitive biological resources. A review of the following online databases was conducted for the project and within a 1- mile radius of the survey area: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022a), CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2022b), U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2022a), USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2022b), Consortium of California Herbaria database (CCH 2022), Calflora database (Calflora 2022), and California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022).
PGCC 9-6-2023
19 The project’s APE includes the Asilomar Dunes residential area, as identified in the Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program (LCP) (Pacific Grove LCP Land Use Plan Figure 6, Coastal Zone Land Use Designations). The Asilomar Dunes residential area is identified as an area of moderate to extreme biological sensitivity per Pacific Grove LCP Land Use Plan Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, and the Asilomar Dunes are an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (Land Use Plan Section 2.4.1).
Item A:
Direct Impacts
Sensitive Plant Species
In total, the 24 sensitive plant species that have been historically documented within 1 mile of the survey area were analyzed for their potential to occur. These sensitive plant species documented within 1 mile of the survey area are shown on Figure 5, Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the Survey Area. Database results (i.e., CNPS, IPaC) that did not provide geographic information systems (GIS) mapping data are not shown on Figure 5, but are discussed in the Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species section of Appendix B.
Two sensitive plant species, Monterey cypress (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1B.2) and Monterey pine (CNPS CRPR 1B.1), were observed in the survey area during the 2022 habitat assessment (Figure 4, Biological Resources).
Three sensitive plant species were not observed but were determined to have high potential to occur in the survey area: sandmat manzanita (Arctostaphylos pumila), Monterey spineflower (Corizanthe pungens var. pungens), and Menzies’ wallflower (Erysimum menziesii). Critical habitat for Yadon’s piperia (Platanthera yadonii) touches the 1-mile data research buffer in the southeast (Figure 5). No Yadon’s piperia critical habitat falls in the survey area. The survey area falls within Monterey spineflower designated critical habitat (Figure 5).
Although potential suitable habitat exists for the sensitive plant species with high potential to occur, the vegetation communities in the survey area, including disturbed dune scrub, disturbed (ruderal) habitat, and urban/developed land, do not provide high-quality suitable habitat for these sensitive plant species due to the dominance of non-native invasive species, poor habitat conditions, and consistent disturbance from surrounding developed land uses (Figure 3). Further, extensive disturbance from pedestrians and bicycles was observed in the potentially suitable disturbed dune scrub habitat in the Arena Avenue segment. The disturbed dune scrub in the Asilomar Avenue segment of the survey area is dominated and overrun by non-native species, primarily a dense, expansive cover of Chilean sea fig (Carpobrotus chilensis) and is unlikely to support sensitive plant species. However, no focused rare plant surveys were conducted, and the presence or absence of these sensitive plant species with potential to occur could not be confirmed.
As described in the Project Description (Section 9), the project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive resources, including the Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees, as well as the disturbed dune scrub that may have the potential to support sensitive plant species, to the maximum extent feasible. The project sites are within the developed areas and disturbed habitat of the roadways and residential properties, and thus have a low likelihood of supporting sensitive plant species due to continued mechanical (and potentially chemical) disturbance. Construction equipment would remain within developed portions (i.e., paved roads and maintained access roads), and activities set to occur outside these locations would be minor, mostly confined to disturbed areas, and temporary in nature. Although implementation of the project is unlikely to result in impacts on habitat that could support sensitive plant species, there is a slight possibility that sensitive plant species could be disturbed. This potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the BMPs and PDFs. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
PGCC 9-6-2023
20 Sensitive Wildlife Species
In total, 23 sensitive wildlife species that have been historically documented within 1 mile of the survey area were analyzed for their potential to occur (Figure 5). No sensitive wildlife species were observed in the survey area during the habitat assessment; however, the survey was conducted in early October 2022, outside the active season for most species (i.e., breeding birds, migrating or ovipositing butterflies). Although not observed during the field survey, there is potential occurrence of two sensitive wildlife species, monarch butterfly overwintering population (Danaus plexippus population 1) and Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin). The vegetation communities and land cover types in the survey area, including disturbed dune scrub, disturbed (ruderal) habitat, and developed land, do not provide high-quality suitable habitat for these sensitive wildlife species due to poor habitat conditions (Figure 3). Further, many of the other sensitive wildlife species occurrences were documented more than 40 years ago, and these species have likely been extirpated from the area since that time.
Occurrences of overwintering monarch butterfly, a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, have been documented within 1 mile of the survey area in the past 10 years (Figure 5). The Monterey cypress trees in the survey area have potential to be used by monarch butterflies during migration. Further, many of the flowering plants that occur in the disturbed dune scrub provide suitable nectar sources for monarch butterflies moving through the survey area. However, suitable habitat for monarch butterflies is likely not present at the project sites because suitable wintering groves provide a dense grove of trees sheltered from high winds typically by an outer grove or windrow of trees. The trees at the project sites are fairly spread out, and don’t provide much shelter from high winds.
As previously discussed, PDF-2, Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing, would require a preconstruction focused rare plant clearance survey and the installation of avoidance flagging and fencing around the sensitive dune habitat, Monterey cypress trees, and Monterey pine trees prior to construction to avoid potential encroachment. Further, activities that would occur in the disturbed dune scrub would be minor in footprint and nature and would not result in the removal or disturbance (i.e., tree trimming) of Monterey cypress or nectar sources for overwintering monarch butterflies. Therefore, the potential for direct impacts on monarch butterflies or other potentially occurring sensitive species would be less than significant.
As discussed in the Project Description, the project has been designed to avoid impacts on sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible, including the Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and disturbed dune scrub that could support sensitive wildlife species. Further, the majority of the proposed APE occurs in the developed land and disturbed habitat of the roadways and residential properties that have a low likelihood to support sensitive wildlife species. With implementation of PDF-1 through PDF-4, the disturbed dune scrub, Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and other vegetation that occur in the proposed APE that could support sensitive wildlife species would be avoided during project activities. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in impacts on habitat that could support sensitive wildlife species. Direct impacts on sensitive wildlife species would be less than significant.
Indirect Impacts
Potential indirect impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species generally include construction-related habitat disturbance (trampling), dust generation, pollutant discharges, soil erosion and runoff, noise, vibration, lighting, increased human activity, introduction of non-native and invasive plant species, and accumulation of trash and garbage, which can attract introduced terrestrial, native terrestrial, and avian predators (i.e., corvids, canids, raccoons, and striped skunks). These temporary constructionrelated impacts could adversely affect sensitive plant and wildlife species that could occur in the survey area. Potential indirect impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of PDF-1, Focused Rare Plant Clearance Survey and Avoidance, and PDF-2, Sensitive Habitats Flagging and Fencing, which require a pre-construction focused rare plant clearance survey and the installation of avoidance flagging and fencing around the sensitive dune habitat prior to construction PGCC 9-6-2023