20 • The application is revised by the applicant during the meeting. • The Committee requests that the application be revised.
When Action Is Necessary
In certain circumstances—a permit application, for example— the lack of any action is not acceptable (e.g., an application must ultimately be approved or denied) due to deadlines imposed by the Permit Streamlining Act, the Federal Communications Commission or other laws. There are three primary options here:
1. Continuing the item. This is often undertaken if one or more members of the body are absent or if new information can be developed. Continuance can also provide the applicant with time to consider options, develop a project more likely to receive approval, etc. Continuance ordinarily is undertaken with concurrence of the applicant, but concurrence is not required.
2. Technically denying the application. This option is based on the philosophy that, for a project that has been proposed, approval requires a majority of members to vote in favor. Anything less than the required majority is thus considered a denial. One option under “technical denial” is to allow any applicant or other party to appeal the matter (assuming an appeal would otherwise have been available) on the grounds that the matter was “deemed denied.” This option avoids the need for the body to take further action (e.g., if the body is unable to achieve a majority vote to forward the matter to the next higher body)
3. Denying the application without prejudice. This option may, in some situations, require at least one member of the body to switch their vote, in order to vote to deny for procedural reasons only. Such reasons should be stated in the motion, so the record is clear. It allows the applicant to either: a) appeal to the next higher body; or b) resubmit the same project or a modified project reflecting Committee or City input, without paying fees, waiting a minimum number of months, etc. (such a delay could be for any number of possible reasons, including awaiting turnover on the Committee). This option is in addition to the provisions exclusively for the Planning Commission detailed in PGMC §§23.70.080
See Council Policy 000-9 Council Guidelines for details concerning the procedure for hearings.
Appeals and Call-Ups
The decisions of certain Committees may be appealed or called up as set forth in PGMC §§23.74 and Table 23.70.012-1. For example, decisions of the Site Plan Review Committee and the Architectural Review Board may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission may be appealed to Council.
Similarly, the Council may call up for review any decision of the Planning Commission or any other review authority and make its own de novo decision on the action or matter. The Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission also have the authority to call up certain actions of review bodies over which they have appeal authority. Call-ups require a vote or three members of the body.
See Council Policy 000-9 Council Guidelines for details concerning the procedure for appeals.
PGCC 1-17-24
21 8. Compliance with Federal, State and Municipal Laws Committee members are representatives of the City and have a duty to represent the City to the best of their ability, and to take those actions that the member believes are for the benefit of the City as a whole.
Members are expected to comply with all applicable federal, state and municipal laws as applied to their Committee responsibilities.
Committee members have the following ethical duties.
▪ Duty of Loyalty:
Committee members have an absolute obligation to put the public’s interest before their own direct or indirect personal interests. Members breach this obligation when they benefit at the public expense. Prohibited benefits can be financial (such as participating in decisions that favorably impact a member’s business, property, or investments), career-related (such as using public office and/or public resources to obtain future employment or political position), or personal such as benefits to family members or close associates. Conflict of interest requires recusal.
▪ Duty of Due Diligence
The duty of care requires that the Committee member competently and faithfully execute the duties of the office. Examples of breach of this duty include failure to attend meetings, failure to investigate, failure to engage in the deliberative process, and failure to vote. ▪ Duty to Avoid Bias
Committee members have a duty to represent all of their constituents fairly. This means that they must overcome any inherent bias that they possess.
Each member shall file on a timely basis all appropriate Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC Form 700) reports which can be obtained online or through the City Clerk. The City’s Conflict of Interest Code can be found at PGMC §2.40.
Each member shall complete required AB 1234 ethics training in a reasonable time upon appointment and repeat this training at least biannually. The City Clerk should be notified upon completion. See Appendix D – Training for more information.
Each member shall also complete sexual harassment prevention training in a reasonable time upon appointment. The state mandate for local agency official sexual harassment prevention training is commonly referred to as “AB 1661” training. A “local agency official” must receive at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training within the first six months of taking office, and every two years thereafter, if the City provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a local agency official of the City. (Cal.Gov.Code § 53237.1.) “Local agency official” means any member of a local agency (which includes a City) legislative body and any elected local agency official. (Cal.Gov.Code § 53237).
PGCC 1-17-24
22 9. Reference Materials
Committees perform best when members are knowledgeable in their area of responsibility. Thus, members are encouraged to become familiar with pertinent materials, which may be found on the Committees’ webpage and departmental webpages.
Examples below.
• Architectural Review Board – General Plan, PGMC Titles 12, 23, 24, Architectural Review Guidelines for Single-Family Residences
• Beautification and Natural Resources Commission – Urban Forestry Standards (2012), Landscape Guidelines and Plant Palette (2016), Urban Greening Plan (2016), City Council Policy 900-3 ‘Acceptance of Art Donations’
• Economic Development Commission - https://pickpg.org/ • Historic Resources Committee – General Plan, PGMC §23.70.070 and 23.76, City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Historic Resources Inventory. Library Board - City Council Policy 200-6 ‘Library Policies’
• Museum Board – Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Operating and Lease Agreement, https://www.pointpinoslighthouse.org/
• Planning Commission – General Plan, PGMC, Local Coastal Plan, Housing Element • Recreation Board – City Council Policy 900-1 ‘Special Events’, City Council Policy 200-3 ‘Municipal Tennis Program’, City Council Policy 100-8 ‘Municipal Softball Park Rules, Regulations & Improvements’
PGCC 1-17-24
23 Appendix A – Teleconference Attendance
If and when a Committee member wishes to attend a meeting by teleconference, then the Committee member should contact, as soon as possible, the City Clerk, Staff Liaison or Council Liaison who can consult with City Attorney if necessary. The rules for teleconference attendance at a Committee meeting by a member of the Committee are set forth in Government Code Section 54953 which specifies three types of teleconference attendance.
1. Traditional Teleconference - Government Code Section 54953 (b) Here are the rules which apply to traditional teleconferencing:
(1) All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by rollcall. (2) The teleconferenced meetings shall be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency.
(3) The legislative body shall give notice of the meeting and post agendas as otherwise required by this chapter.
(4) The legislative body shall allow members of the public to access the meeting and the agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to § 54954.3.
(5) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations.
(6) Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding,
(7) Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. (8) During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction
2. Teleconference Attendance During a Proclaimed State of Emergency - Government Code Section 54953 (e)
See Government Code Section 54953 (e) which describes the rules that apply to teleconference during a proclaimed state of emergency. This is the type of teleconferencing that was utilized during the COVID proclaimed state of emergency.
Some of the key points to note for teleconference attendance at a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency include:
PGCC 1-17-24
24 (1) There must be a proclaimed state of emergency
(2) Notice must be given to the public how to offer public comment remotely in real time (3) If a disruption of the call-in or internet connection, then no further action may be taken on items on the agenda
(4) If a timed public comment period, then public comment must remain open until the timed public comment period has elapsed.
(5) Every 45 days after teleconferencing for the first time, the legislative body must take a vote to allow for continued use of this teleconferencing method. (6) The legislative body is not required to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment.
3. Teleconference Attendance Authorized by AB 2449 – Government Code Section 54953 (f) Teleconferencing with Section 54953 (f) is permitted when there are “emergency circumstances” or “just cause” which are defined as follows:
(1) “Emergency circumstances” means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
(2) “Just cause” means any of the following:
(A) A childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely. “Child,” “parent,” “grandparent,” “grandchild,” and “sibling” have the same meaning as those terms do in Section 12945.2. (B) A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person. (C) A need related to a physical or mental disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 not otherwise accommodated by subdivision (g).
(D) Travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency.
Some of the key points for teleconference attendance based on AB 2449 include the following:
(1) At least a quorum of the members of the legislative body must participate in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda which location shall be open to the public
(2) The teleconference location where the member is present does not need to be available for attendance by the public.
(3) The legislative body must give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment including comment remotely in real time.
PGCC 1-17-24
25 (4) If a disruption of the call-in or internet connection, then no further action may be taken on items on the agenda
(5) “Just Cause”: The member must notify the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for just cause, including a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. The provisions of this clause shall not be used by any member of the legislative body for more than two meetings per calendar year.
(6) “Emergency Circumstances”: The member must request the legislative body to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances and the legislative body takes action to approve the request. The legislative body shall request a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. A general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words and shall not require the member to disclose any medical diagnosis or disability, or any personal medical information that is already exempt under existing law.
Note: The procedure for the legislative body to take action to approve (or deny) the request would be a motion at the beginning of the by a Committee member to approve (or deny) the request by the member to attend the meeting by teleconference, followed by a second and a vote by the Committee members. If the Motion is denied, the Committee member can still attend the meeting, but only as an observer and should not speak during the meeting.
(7) A member shall make a request to participate remotely at a meeting as soon as possible. (8) The member shall make a separate request for each meeting in which they seek to participate remotely.
(9) The legislative body may take action on a request to participate remotely at the earliest opportunity. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place proposed action on such a request on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body may take action at the beginning of the meeting in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. (10) The member shall publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member's relationship with any such individuals. (11) There is a limitation on teleconferencing with AB 2449 in that such attendance may be no more than three consecutive months or 20 percent of the regular meetings for the local agency within a calendar year, or more than two meetings if the legislative body regularly meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year.
PGCC 1-17-24
26 Appendix B – Motions
The Chair usually initiates a motion by:
1. Inviting a member to make a motion: ‘‘A motion at this time would be in order;”
2. Suggesting a motion: ‘‘A motion would be in order that we approve and forward to the Council the annual report, as drafted;” or
3. Making the motion.
Once recognized, a member makes a motion by preceding the member’s desired approach with the words: “I move ...”. A typical motion might be: “I move that we accept the staff recommendation that...” Often, a member will prefer a variant of the motion on the floor. They can ask the maker and seconder if they are willing to reword their motion. If they agree, the motion is so amended.
If one or both is not amenable to the suggested rewording, a member may propose an amendment or wait until after the vote on the original motion and propose a different motion. Up to three principle motions—the basic motion and two amendments— may be considered at one time – in reverse order:
1. The basic motion. The basic motion proposes a decision for consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a two-member Committee to study this matter in depth.”
2. The motion to amend. A motion to amend proposes to change the basic motion under discussion. A motion to amend might be: “I move that the Committee focus on just two primary options.”
3. The motion to amend an amendment. A motion to amend an amendment proposes a further change to the motions under discussion. A motion to amend the amendment might be: “I move that one of the options for the Committee to analyze be to prohibit murals on wood-sided buildings.”
No further motion to address the substance of the matter is in order. (Incidental or privileges motions, which deal with procedural issues, may still be raised.) Each motion is subject to deliberation.
A motion to amend or to amend an amendment is at times labeled a “substitute motion.” Whether considered as an amendment or a substitute, such motions are handled the same.
When Multiple Motions Are before the Committee
When two or three substantive motions are on the floor (with each having been seconded) at the same time, the first vote resolves the last motion made. If the amendments deal with alternative approaches to the same question, and a majority votes to approve the third motion, the remaining motions are then moot, and action on the agenda item would be complete. If the third motion fails, the Chair then proceeds to consider the second motion.
If an amendment deals with a different aspect of the same matter, then the motions would be considered in turn, in reverse order (second amendment, first amendment, and original motion).
In action minutes, only the final motion or action is recorded.
PGCC 1-17-24
27 Limits to Deliberation
While the basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate, some exceptions limit debate on a motion. Examples of motions that are not debatable include:
• A motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed by simple majority, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. • A motion to recess. This motion, if passed by simple majority, requires the body to immediately take a recess for the time set by the Chair.
• A motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed by simple majority, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. • A motion to table. This motion, if passed by simple majority, places the matter on “hold” and ends discussion of the item. The motion may state a specific time when the item shall return on the agenda, but it need not.
When these, or other incidental or privileged motions are made and seconded, the Chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion.
Most motions require a simple majority; but a few exceptions apply when the body limits a minority from acting on or discussing an item. These motions require a two thirds majority to pass:
• End debate. Members can end debate by “moving the previous question.” • Motion to close nominations. A motion to close nominations limits the right of a minority to nominate officers.
• Motion to suspend rules. This motion is debatable but requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
Division of a Motion
If a motion contains two or more divisible propositions, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition, the Chair may, and upon request of a member shall, divide the same. The Chair’s determination shall be appealable by any member. For example, a motion to approve a project and waive applicant fees is divisible into two separate motions.
Withdrawal of a Motion
A motion may be withdrawn by the maker at any time prior to the vote, without the consent of the member seconding it. Any other member may choose to make the same motion.
Motion to Continue
The Committee may vote to continue items to a subsequent meeting for the following reasons:
▪ The Committee requires additional information during the meeting; ▪ New information or issues come to light during the meeting that need further study; or ▪ Other reasons the Committee deems “appropriate and substantial.” A motion to continue requires a majority vote for approval. This is also known as a motion to postpone and is amendable.
The Committee may continue a submitted application when:
▪ The applicant cannot appear at the meeting and has requested that the item be continued; ▪ The application is revised by the applicant during the meeting; or ▪ The Commission requests that the application be revised.
PGCC 1-17-24
28 ▪ Continuances ordinarily are undertaken with concurrence of the applicant, but concurrence is not required.
Motion to Reconsider
A motion to reconsider a vote is a motion limited in both the time it can be made and the person who can make it. A motion to reconsider an action taken by the Committee may be made on the same day as the meeting in which the motion to be reconsidered was decided, or the next business day if the session is more than one day. The motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side but may be seconded by any member. For example, a person voting in the majority of a 4-3 vote for a motion to approve or deny an item (prevailing side) may make a motion to reconsider. If there is tie vote (3-3 and 1 absence), or if the motion fails (3 in favor, 2 against, 2 absent), then a motion to reconsider is not available as it only applies to actions taken by the Committee.
A motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable, and is not amendable. If the motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered. Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the same motion. If the motion to reconsider passes, the original matter is back before the Committee. The matter may be discussed, debated, and amended as if it were on the floor for the first time.
No member is prevented from making a motion to rescind such action at a subsequent meeting of the Committee, provided the agenda for that meeting includes the proposed action to rescind. Often such motions are used to make policy changes. The motion must be seconded, is debatable, and requires a majority vote.
PGCC 1-17-24
29 Appendix C– Voting
Majority Voting Requirement
The Code requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the total members of the Committee (excluding any non-voting members), on any item, for any action by the Committee, unless otherwise provided.1 (See PGMC §§ 3.02.070 and 3.04.080). For example, the majority of a fully constituted Committee is 4. In a 7-member body, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. If there are 2 vacancies, and the total members are 5, then a majority is 3 members. Therefore, unless a super-majority is required, a simple majority vote determines whether each motion passes or is defeated. Proxy votes for absent members are not allowed.
Tie Votes
A tie vote means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3-3, the motion fails. Tie votes may be reconsidered on motion by any member of the Committee voting aye or nay during the original vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda, any member of the Committee may make a motion to continue the matter to another date. Any continuance for this purpose suspends the running of any time in which action of the Committee is required by law.
Disqualification from Voting; Recusal
Commission members shall disqualify themselves from deliberation and voting on any matter before the Commission, prior to the Commission’s consideration of the matter, when there is a conflict of interest.
A member may also choose not to participate due to personal bias or the appearance of impropriety.
Upon the Chair’s announcement of an item, members must state that they are disqualifying themselves due to a conflict of interest, state the nature of the conflict (e.g., financial), and leave the room until the completion of that item.
If the number of members recusing themselves due to a conflict of interest disrupts the quorum, the “rule of necessity” allows the random selection of the fewest number of conflicted members to vote as is needed to enable a quorum to participate and reach a decision. For example, if 4 out of 7 Committee members are conflicted, the Committee may select one of the conflicted members to vote so as to have a quorum.
Abstentions
Abstentions are discouraged. Members should abstain from voting only due to lack of participation in an evidentiary proceeding before the Committee and their inability to review the record. In that instance, members will be recorded as absent for that item.
A member present for consideration of a motion who opposes the motion must vote against it. In the event of an abstention the abstainer in effect “consents” that a majority of the quorum of the members present may act for them. Thus, a member who abstains (for any reason other than lack of opportunity to review the record) is deemed to acquiesce in the action taken by the majority of members who voted.
For example, on a 7-member Committee, if the vote is 3 in favor, 2 against, with 1 absence and 1 abstention, the motion is approved, since a quorum was present, and a majority of the total 1 In certain circumstances, supermajority votes (majority + 1) are required: certain actions of Council, e.g., an urgency ordinance; zoning amendments by the Planning Commission.
PGCC 1-17-24
30 membership is judged to have voted in favor. A 3-3 vote with one abstention means the motion fails as there is no majority.
Members who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual members have stated in advance that they will not be voting.
Voting Methods. When a motion is not likely to be opposed, the Chair says, “If there is no objection, …”.
The members show their agreement, called “general consent,” by their silence. If a member says, “I object,” the item is put to a vote. Most votes shall be by voice vote. The Chair asks those in favor to say, “Aye,” and those opposed to say “No.” If the outcome is unclear by voice, a hand vote may be taken.
Any member may move for an exact count. In some cases, a roll call vote is required, with each member answering “yes” or “no” as his or her name is called. The order of voting for roll call votes shall be random.
Recording of Votes. The results of the vote shall be announced immediately following the action as shown in the following example: “The motion passed 5-2, Brown and Smith voting no.” The minutes of the Committee’s proceedings shall show the vote of each member, including whether they were absent or failed to vote on a matter considered. For example,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Members may change their votes up to the time the vote is finally announced. After that, members may only change with permission of the Committee, which may be given by general consent; that is, by no member’s objecting when the Chair inquires if anyone objects. If an objection is made, a motion may be made to grant the permission, which is debatable.
PGCC 1-17-24
31 Appendix D – Training
Mandatory Ethics Training AB 1234
AB 1234, passed in 2014, codified at Government Code § 53235, requires many California state and local officials and employees to complete mandatory ethics training. It states:
(a) (1) If a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.
(2) All local agency officials who are members of the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article, whether or not any member receives any type of compensation, salary, or stipend or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties. (b) Each local agency official shall receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to the official’s public service every two years. (c) If an entity develops curricula to satisfy the requirements of this §, then the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorney General shall be consulted regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the proposed course content. When reviewing any proposed course content, the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorney General shall not preclude an entity from also including local ethics policies in the curricula.
(d) A local agency or an association of local agencies may offer one or more training courses, or sets of self-study materials with tests, to meet the requirements of this §. These courses may be taken at home, in-person, or online.
(e) A provider of training courses to meet the requirements of this article shall provide participants with proof of participation to meet the requirements of § 53235.2. (f) A local agency shall provide information on training available to meet the requirements of this article to its local officials at least once annually.
AB 1234 applies to “members of a legislative body,” which is defined as in the Brown Act, Government Code § 54952. It thus applies to members appointed to city boards and commissions.
AB 1234 does not specify a time period within which an official must take and complete the training.
Where, as here, a statute does not impose a specific time requirement, the statute is deemed to require compliance within a “reasonable” time.
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 9 D
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Establishment of Budget Schedule for FY24-25
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt by Motion Proposed Schedule for the Development of the FY 24-25 Budget.
DISCUSSION
The development phase of the FY 24-25 City Budget is about to get underway. It is appropriate to ask the Council to adopt a budget schedule that will provide milestones and direction for the development of the budget. This will ensure the timely second reading of the ordinance necessary for budget adoption prior to the start of the new fiscal year, July 1, 2024.
February 21, 2024 -Mid- Year Budget Review. The Mid-Year report will provide the Council with the opportunity to review the current fiscal year’s progress through December 31, 2023. The report will include a review of revenue and expenditures through the midpoint, and a financial update on the Capital Improvement Program Projects.
1. February 28, 2024- Goal Setting and Budget Workshop. (Please note special meeting date). Last year the Council participated in a facilitated extensive goal setting session that resulted in the setting of goals for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25. During this session the Council will review established goals, modify and add goals as necessary and provide direction for the development of the FY 24-25 Budget. The Budget Workshop will include an overview of City finances and a five-year fiscal forecast to assist with identifying any Council funding priorities and multi-year fiscal planning.
2. March 6, 2024- Council to complete Second reading of the Mid-Year Budget Amendment Ordinance (Consent Item).
3. 4. April 17, 2024- Capital Improvement Program Presentation for FY 24-25
5. May 15, 2024- Proposed Budget Presentation
6. June 5, 2024 - First Reading of Proposed Budget for FY 24-25
7. June 19, 2024- Second Reading of Ordinance, Proposed Budget Adoption.
OPTIONS
PGCC 1-17-24
1. Adopt the proposed budget schedule for the development FY 24-25 Budget:
2. Adopt a modified budget schedule for FY 24-25
3. Provide directions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the Budget Schedule will enable the City to meet the requirement of adopting a budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 9 E
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: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Appointments to AMBAG Board of Directors
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointments to Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Board of Directors effective immediately.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tempore Smith recently resigned as an AMBAG director, leaving a vacancy until certification of the next general election later this year. Appointing Councilmembers Coletti as primary director (who is currently alternate) and Beck as alternate director, would fill this vacancy. These appointments end December 2024.
The City is a member of several regional agencies which jointly provide us with vital planning and services. Our participation requires designation of a representative to their respective board of directors. Appointments require Council approval.
OPTIONS
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 10 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Diversity Equity and Inclusion Meeting Minutes: September 11, 2023, October 9, 2023, November 13, 2023, and December 11, 2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
DEI Minutes 9-11
DEI Minutes 10-9
DEI Minutes 11-12
DEI Minutes 12-11
PGCC 1-17-24
1 MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, September 11, 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/89179208141
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Kim Bui called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. City Clerk/DEI Coordinator Kandell conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present: Chair Bui, Vice Chair Mark, Member Fryberger, and Member Hoops.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui and seconded by Member Hoops the Task Force voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Bui, Vice-Chair Mark, Member Fryberger, and Member Hoops.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. PRESENTATIONS
A. See Monterey Presentation
Action: The Task Force received presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Task Force Members made general announcements.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Richard Davis, Adam deBoor, Mike Gibbs, Carol Marquart, Beth Walker, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Daniel Miller, Heather Mothershead Zunguze, Melanie Zaragoza and Klarity Coleman.
A. Written General Public Comment
PGCC 1-17-24
2 7. CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui and seconded by Member Hoops, the Task Force voted to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried 4-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Chair Bui, Vice-Chair Mark, Member Fryberger, and Members Hoops.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
A. Minutes of the August 16, 2023 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Action: Approved minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REGULAR AGENDA
A. DEI Resources Webpage
Public comment received from Mike Gibbs, Mari Adams, and Lisa Ciani.
Action: The DEI Task Force received an oral report from the DEI Resources Webpage Subcommittee.
9. NEXT MEETING: October 9, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bui adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
Approved by Chair: _______________________________Date________________ PGCC 1-17-24
1 MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
TASK FORCE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, October 9, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Kim Bui called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm. Police Chief Cathy Madalone conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present: Task Force Members (Members) Chair Kim Bui, Vice Chair Nadja Mark. Members Fryberger and Hoops.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui to move Item 8B to Item 3 on the Agenda with a second by Member Hoops the Task Force approved the Agenda.
Motion carried 4-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members Bui, Marks, Fryberger, Hoops.
NOES: None.
3. Agenda item # 3 on the Agenda is Election of Secretary (taken out of order). Member Hoops was nominated.
AYES: Members Bui, Marks, Fryberger, Hoops.
NOES: None.
4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Chair Bui, Vice Chair Marks, and Members Hoops and Fryberger made announcements.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Poduri made announcements.
6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Mike Gibbs, Carol Marquardt, Colleen Ingram, Lisa Ciani, Inge L. Daumer, Alex Robert, and Mari Adams.
PGCC 1-17-24
2 7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Purpose, Powers, and Duties as related to the city of Pacific Grove. Chair Bui provided a power point and lead the discussion on this study session.
8. NEXT MEETING: Regular meeting on November 13, 2023, at 6pm.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bui adjourned the regular meeting at 7:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Chief Cathy Madalone
Approved by Chair: Date
PGCC 1-17-24
1 MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION TASK
FORCE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, November 13, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
The meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum.
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. PRESENTATIONS
A. Library Presentation by Priscilla Tran
4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only)
5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of the DEI Task Force October 9, 2023, meeting minutes.
8. REGULAR AGENDA
A. DEI Resources Webpage
B. Appointment of Work Plan Subcommittees
C. Boards and Commissions Joint Working Group
9. NEXT MEETING
Scheduled for Monday, December 11, 2023.
10. ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 1-17-24
2 Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
Approved by Chair: _______________________________Date________________ PGCC 1-17-24
MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
TASK FORCE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, December 11, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
The meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum.
The next meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2024 at 6pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
Approved by Chair: _______________________________Date________________ PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 10 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Charlene Williams, Library Director
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Library Board Minutes: November 7, 2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.
Attachments
LAB Minutes November 2023
PGCC 1-17-24
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
November 7, 2023, 4:00 P.M.
Council Chamber-City Hall-300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA This meeting was held in Council Chambers and via Zoom webinar
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL –4:00 pm. Attending: Library Director, Diana Godwin; Board Chair Tama Olver; Board members, Tom Oldham and Alycia Perez; City Council Liaison Lori McDonnell. Board Secretary Carla Nielson was viewing and taking minutes via Zoom, but not participating in discussion.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve agenda. Approved.
2. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Hybrid Meeting Format-Reference: Tama Olver, Chair Action: Tama put forward the revised policy for meeting format and participation. Those participating remotely via Zoom, will only be able to observe. Only in-person participants will be allowed to speak during public comment. Emailed questions submitted prior to the meeting will be accepted.
B. Staff Presentation-Reference: Diana Godwin, Library Director ● Staffing-Diana will be retiring from her role as Director on 12/29/2023.
Recruitment for this position closes on 11/12/2023. Michelle will be relocating out of state and will be giving her notice in December 2023.
The library will be closed on 11/10, a city holiday and will be open on Saturday, 11/11. The library will be closed 11/23-11/25 for Thanksgiving.
Diana and Mary will be out 11/18-25.
● Children’s Programs-Haunted Library: 369 participants. School and Preschool visits, Lego Night on 11/1, had Youth Ambassador Vanessa helping out. Bilingual Storytime on 11/11 and 12/9. No Build It! In November due to Thanksgiving.
● Teen programs-Teen Banana Sushi, 11/7. December: Teen Holiday Bingo, 12/13. Teen Paint Party. YA staffing Teen Tech and assisting with getting PGCC 1-17-24
the word out at PGHS for other teen events and the Fall Series. ● Gallery-”Ourselves We Sing” poetry, dance and art events. Closing reception, January 5, 2024.
● Events- Monterey Bay Poetry Consortium on 10/14 as well as on the 2nd Saturday of the month through December. 11/11-Marie Butcher and Elliot Ruchowitz-Roberts, December-Jeff Erwin and Heather Flescher.
Attendance for 10/20 Daniel Summerhill was 49. 11/3 for Georgina Marie Guardado was 63. On 11/17 will be Robert Gomez.
● MOVe-Waiting for SignWorks wrap date. The design has been approved by PGPL and our partners at California State Library. GEM at PW currently and has a designated parking/charging spot behind the Fire Department.
● Generator-Will discuss with Interim CM Robert Perrault.
3. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS (Reference: Lori McDonnell) ● Approved City Manager interim contract for Robert Perrault. ● Update long-term City Manager job description, salary and classification prior to recruitment efforts to fill position
● Approved a resolution appointing Lew Bauman to temporarily fill the Community Development Director position.
● Transmitted draft of housing element on 11/11/2023.
● Hold a second reading to amend and adopt job classification schedule/salaries.
● 1st of two ordinances regarding licensing and business zoning for cannabis sales
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Inge Lorentzen Daumer noted via email that she has concerns that the new format for meetings restricts her voice/opinions since she is unable to attend in-person.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 11TH MEETING Tom motions to approve, Alycia seconded, 3/0/0
6. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Non-Monetary Donations-Reference: Tama noted 4 typos on document. The Board agreed that an “ipad display” would be best suited to detail volunteer’s contributions as well as being more colorful and exciting than a plaque. Tom began a discussion on the “Merits and Standards” issue. Those chosen would have 10+ years of volunteer work, contribution to programs, service and growth of the library.
PGCC 1-17-24
Question-Do we want to specify the number of nominees to be recommended each year? Answer: No we won't limit nominees as there may be more in the first few years of the award and then it may taper down. Tama noted that this is not necessarily an annual award.
Question-Who makes the decision on the honorees? Answer: The Chair of LAB, Chair of Friends and the Library Director confer.
Question-What if one member of the nominating committee is not available? Answer: The committee may designate another member of that particular group.
Diana commented that a more permanent display could appear on the window, above the door to the Youth Area and there is additional space to the right of the window. Another action item to be addressed is the naming of the award. Should be colorful and could be named for an instrumental person from the library’s past.
Diana mentioned that funds are available to support volunteer efforts.
Tom asked what is the scope of the volunteers? Should it be from the pooled volunteer corps? How inclusive, as Book Sale volunteers don't really see themselves as part of the library’s volunteer group. Diana will speak to Friends and Foundation for input on these issues, as well as the appointment of a volunteer coordinator which she feels is needed.
B. Library Art Collection-Reference: Alycia
Update-The deaccession of items has been done and some were sold at the Library Book Sale last Saturday
C. Outreach, Communication and Community Involvement-(Reference Tom/Carla) The committee is continuing their efforts to learn more about the library’s services.
Several questions were submitted to Diana and she was very prompt in her response. Information pertaining to staffing of outreach, availability of public computers and adult evening programming has been compiled. These inquiries will lead the committee on a path to identify future opportunities relating to library services.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Regular Meeting Schedule-Reference: Tama Olver
PGCC 1-17-24
Should every meeting start at 3pm? Motion approved 3/0/0 B. Future Agendas-Reference:Tama Olver
1. Should the LAB participate in a group consisting of a representative from each board with the goal of maintaining consistency city-wide?
2. Follow up on record keeping for purchased art
Meeting adjourned at 4:44 pm. Next meeting on January 2nd, 2024.
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 11 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Appeal of Coastal Development Permit 23-0221 for 270 Central Ave (APN# 006-214-002)
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission determination, and approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-0221 based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).
DISCUSSION
Site Description
The 10,815 square foot parcel is located on the north side of Central Avenue between 4th and 5th Streets. It is currently developed with a 4,687 square foot multifamily residence. The property is in the Coastal Zone, in an Archaeologically sensitive area, in the City's area of special biological significance, and listed on the Historic Resources Inventory.
The applicant has provided Phase I & II Archaeological Studies, as well as a Phase II Historical Assessment (Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA, 7/17/2023).
Surrounding Land Uses
The parcel is located in an area consisting of apartment buildings, inns, and medium to large-sized, oneand two-story residences in the Pacific Grove Retreat neighborhood.
Project Description
The proposed project will allow for the conversion of an 8-unit multifamily residence to an 8-unit Bed and Breakfast Inn with associated site improvements. In-kind replacement of original windows is proposed (pursuant to Window Guidelines, Appendix IV of the Pacific Grove Architectural Review Guidelines), as well as the replacement of non-historic windows with windows that match or closely match the original windows.
Pursuant to PGMC 23.70.020(b), project types eligible for Counter Review and Determination, where a use permit is also required, are reviewed under PGMC 23.70.080 (Planning Commission).
PGCC 1-17-24
On December 1, 2023, the building official inspected the original windows and determined them to be "too deteriorated to restore." Pursuant to PGMC 23.70.020(b)(2)(a), the in-kind window replacement for properties listed on the HRI that have been deemed “too deteriorated to restore” are eligible for Counter Review and Determination.
Pursuant to PGMC 23.70.020(b)(2)(b), window replacement of non-original windows with windows that match or closely match the original are eligible for Counter Review and Determination.
All proposed window replacements are eligible for Counter Review and Determination and were reviewed by the Planning Commission under the use permit.
Background and Summary of Appeal
The Planning Commission (PC) considered the project at the December 14, 2023, meeting, held a public hearing and voted to approve the project with 5 ayes, 1 nay, and one commissioner absent (PC permit attached).
On December 27, 2023, the appellant submitted a timely appeal (attached) of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The appellant contended that the project, as approved did not comply with Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) section
23.90.080 - Required findings for CDP approval citing the following subsections:
1. 23.90.080(a) LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP.
23.90.080 (g), Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.
2. 23.90.080 (h) Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.
3. On December 27, 2023, the appellant also provided an email (attached) to clarify his appeal of the Coastal Development Permit stating that he is appealing “the approval of a de facto Short Term Rental use on a parcel that is not included on the City’s approved Short Term Rental (STR) Map as an existing STR. Therefore, the proposed STR use does not comply with the definition of an STR or the LCP Land Use Plan.)”
Regarding the contention of compliance with PGMC 23.90.080 - Required findings for CDP approval:
23.90.080(a), LCP Consistency.
a. The appellant provided no substantial evidence to demonstrate this contention. b. Findings and supporting evidence can be found on CDP 23-0221 (attached).
1. 23.90.080(g), Appropriate Use.
a. The appellant provided no substantial evidence to demonstrate this contention.
Land Use Plan Ch. 3.2 Land Uses and Designations (LUD)
Policy LUD-6: Allowed uses for Coastal Zone areas designated Medium High Density Residential 10-20 du/acre (MHD 10-20): (g) bed and breakfast facilities. i.
b.
2. 23.90.080(h), Coastal Resources.
a. The appellant provided no substantial evidence to demonstrate this contention.
While not the legally binding standard of review for Coastal Development Permits, the General Plan, asserts that “as a means to preserve older houses, bed and breakfast inns are allowed with a use permit in the R-3-PGR, R-4, and C zoning districts.” Thus, encouraging the protection and enhancement of the City’s historic resources. b.
A Phase II Historical Assessment conducted on July 17, 2023, by Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA concluded the following: "Taking into consideration the various alterations to c.
3. PGCC 1-17-24
the residence since its original construction around 1910-1911, particularly during the 1940s, and the fact that the current project appears to be compatible in use, design, and architectural details to the original residence, the project appears to be compliant with the [Secretary of Interior's] Standards."
Regarding the appellants allegation of “de facto Short Term Rental:” Short Term Rental use is not proposed (see the attached Coastal Development determination, CDP application, and CDD application).
1. The proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn meets the requirements as defined by 23.90.020 (2) - “Bed and breakfast inn” means the use of a residential property for commercial lodging purposes where there are at least eight rooms available to guests and where the principal buildings were constructed at least 75 years prior to the date of application for the use.
2. The applicant testified at the December 14, Planning Commission hearing that food will be provided to the patrons of the proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn. This negates the allegation that the proposed use will be a “de facto Short Term Rental” per PGMC23.90.020 (1) - “Vacation rental” or “short-term rental” mean the use of a residential structure or a portion of a residential structure for short-term transient use where food is not provided.
3. In summary, no substantive evidence or demonstration of inconsistency with the LCP (LUP & IP) has been provided to support the assertions made against the Planning Commission’s December 14, 2023, determination of CDP 23-0221. It is also important to note that none of the claims made by the appellant were made during public comment at the PC hearing or in writing prior to the PC hearing.
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The Local Coastal Program (Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan) is the legally binding standard of review for evaluating Coastal Development Permit applications for development within most of the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone. The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), certified on March 11, 2020, is the relevant portion of the General Plan providing a framework for future growth and development within the City's Coastal Zone. The Implementation Plan (PGMC Chapter 23.90) contains the ordinance and regulations which implement the provisions of the certified LCP. The City of Pacific Grove’s Implementation Plan is found in Chapter 23.90 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.
The subject vicinity is designated Medium High Density du/acre 10-20 in LUP Figure 6. The proposed residential to commercial conversion project is consistent with applicable LUP policies, including the following:
DES-1: All new development shall be consistent with requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program, including the certified Land Use Designations (Figure 6).
LUD-6 (g): Allowed uses for Coastal Zone areas designated Medium High Density Residential 10-20 du/acre (MHD 10-20): bed and breakfast facilities; CRS-3: The City will assist developers and landowners by providing early identification of sensitive sites so that archaeological resources can be considered and protected during the early phases of project design. The City shall require new development to prepare an archaeological report by a qualified professional and, where appropriate, shall require mitigation measures to adequately protect and preserve potential archeological resources.
PRA-11 Lower cost visitor-serving facilities, including overnight accommodations and public recreational opportunities, shall be provided and encouraged. Existing lower-cost accommodations shall be protected and maintained. Overnight accommodations are reserved for transient uses only (30 days or less).
INF-2: Development shall only be approved if it is first clearly demonstrated that the PGCC 1-17-24
development will be served by an adequate existing water allocation and sustainable long-term water supply. Individual private water systems, except for rainwater collection are prohibited.
INF-22: New development in the Coastal Zone shall include adequate off-street parking to minimize the disruption of significant coastal access routes. All traffic impacts associated with new development shall be mitigated appropriately.
Applicable General Plan Policies
The subject property and district are designated for residential uses and structures. The Pacific Grove General Plan provides a framework for future growth and development within the City. The Land Use Element includes goals and polices that call for the orderly, well-planned, and balanced development, consistent with the historic nature of Pacific Grove, the capacity of the City’s infrastructure, and the ability to assimilate new growth. This proposed visitor serving project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies, including the following:
Chapter 2, Land Use
Policy 2: Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development.
Policy 4: Continue to preserve Pacific Grove’s character and regulate development.
Policy 12: Promote and maintain a healthy local economy while preserving the local community character.
Policy 15: Encourage land uses that generate revenue to the City while maintaining a balance with other community needs, such as housing, open space, and recreation.
Regarding bed and breakfast inn conversions, Chapter 2, Land Use of the General Plan states, “Pacific Grove’s Zoning Ordinance allows the conversion of large residential buildings, at least 75 years old, to bed and breakfast inns. As a means to preserve older houses, bed and breakfast inns are allowed with a use permit in the R-3-PGR, R-4, and C zoning districts.” Applicable Zoning Code Regulations
As proposed, the project/use complies with the zoning development standards set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) 23.90 (Implementation Plan or IP), 23.26 (R-3-P.G.R.), and 23.68 (Nonconforming Uses and Buildings). This includes but is not limited to, use, height limit, setbacks, and allowable site coverage. The applicant provided a Project Data Sheet (attached) indicating the development standards of the zoning district, existing conditions, and proposed conditions.
Parking requirements for the proposed use is not set forth in PGMC Section 23.64.190 (Off-street parking, storage). The applicant is proposing nine (9) parking spaces (1 per unit and 1 for staff) which the Planning Commission considered and approved on December 14, 2023. As proposed, the project will be consistent with applicable zoning requirements, including the development regulations of the Community Design chapter of the Local Coastal Program's Implementation Plan (PGMC 23.90.180).
Use Permit (UP)
The use permit review by the Planning Commission occurs concurrently with the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and is subject to the review criteria in PGMC §23.70.080(a). The UP is required per PGMC Section 23.26.020(b), and the required findings for the UP are located in the PC Permit (attached).
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
An application, including concurrent permit materials, was filed with the Community Development Department (CDD) on August 11, 2023. The application submittal is consistent with PGMC §
23.90.060. Findings and related conditions of approval are included in the PC permit (attached). Due to the scope, the proposed project is not eligible for a standard CDP exemption per Section 23.90.040.B, PGCC 1-17-24
and CDD staff forwarded a CDP Determination to the California Coastal Commission on November 29, 2023. The CDP is required per PGMC Section 23.90.040(b)(5) involving an improvement to a structure which changes the intensity of use of the structure, and the required findings for the CDP are located in the draft Permit (attached).
Archaeological Resources
Per PGMC § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Assessments dated, July 17, 2022, and prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Dana E.
Supernowicz, M.A., RPA). The results of the property survey were negative, and no cultural resources were observed or reported. The project is conditioned to address inadvertent discovery of human remains or cultural artifacts.
Biological Resources
Per LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, the project site is identified as having a low habitat value, and the property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures, 4th Avenue, 5th Avenue, and Central Avenue. Additionally, staff conducted a site visit on December 1, 2023, to verify this information. The project site is over 200 feet from the nearest marine habitat. The property is further separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, one city street, and numerous residential and hospitality facilities. As designed and conditioned, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources and is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC §
23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas. In this case, based on available information, an initial site assessment for biological resources is not warranted.
Stormwater Treatment Measure
As proposed, the project does not trigger stormwater requirements. Also, per PGMC 23.90.150, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed new development is under 2,500 square feet of coverage, and will fall within the City’s Municipal Permit.
Coastal Hazards
Per PGMC § 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, the plan set, and conducted a site visit on December 1, 2023, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The nearest point of the subject properties is over 200 feet from the shoreline and the site elevations range from approximately 53 feet to 67 feet. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
In reviewing this action, the City has followed CEQA statute enacted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the adopted guidelines as published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project is found to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities and CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. As proposed, the project is consistent with the parameters of the Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions. Also, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the neighborhood within which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. No adverse environmental effects were identified during staff review of the development application, nor during site inspections. The exceptions to exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources do not apply to this project. There is no substantial evidence of an unusual circumstance because there is no feature or condition of the project that distinguishes the project from the exempt class. Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project PGCC 1-17-24
has a reasonable possibility of having a significant effect on the environment or that it would result in a cumulative significant impact. Specifically, in this case, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
OPTIONS
Deny the appeal, affirm the December 14, 2023, determination of the Planning Commission, and approve Coastal Development Permit 23-0221 based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation)
1. Deny the appeal, modify the conditions of approval to affirm in part the December 14, 2023, determination of the Planning Commission, and approve Coastal Development Permit 23-0221 based on findings, amended conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) ;
2. If required findings per PGMC 23.90.080 - Required findings for CDP approval cannot be made, grant the appeal and disapprove of Coastal Development Permit 23-0221, approved by the planning commission on December 14, 2023.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
CDP appeal application & letter (CIANI)
CDP 23-0221 appeal application - email addendum
CDP Application & Checklist
CDP Determination 23-0221
CDD Application 23-0221
270 Central Project Data Sheet
Draft Resolution CDP 23-0221
CDP & UP 23-0221 Permit-PC signed
270 Central Plan Set
Phase 2 Historic Assessment
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
From: Tony Ciani
To: Sandra Kandell
Cc: Aaron Campbell; CentralCoast@Coastal; Planning Commission; Kahn, Kevin@Coastal Subject: Re: APPEAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP), USE PERMIT (UP) (UP/CDP 23-0221) – 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove
Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 3:51:11 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Ms. Kandell,
I am writing to clarify my appeal of COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP), USE PERMIT (UP) (UP/CDP 23-0221) – 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove includes appealing the approval of a de facto Short Term Rental use ona parcel that is not included on the City's approved Short Term Rental (STR) Map as an existing STR.
Therefore, the proposed STR use does not comply with the definition of a STR or the LCP Land Use Plan.
(https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/embed?
mid=1IOmALjTMDCPiM3q7T9Yf6fPv69Q&ll=36.62011759097855%2C121.90943127229625&z=21) Sincerely,
Anthony A. Ciani, Appellant
PGCC 1-17-24
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Instructions
Please submit a complete application packet including this form with all of the items checked below. If one or more of the items is not applicable to your project, please mark with “not applicable” or “n/a”. All exhibits must be clear, legible, and to scale where appropriate.
Incomplete applications will not be accepted for filing.
Checklist
This checklist is provided for the convenience of applicants in gathering necessary application materials. Additional material may be required prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). For example, preliminary title reports, land surveys, biological/archaeological/botanical reports, restoration plans, and other reports or plans may be required based on the scope of the project.
A completed standard City of Pacific Grove Community Development Planning Permit Application including the Indemnification Form signed by the applicant and property owner
The Plan Set shall include: a Site Plan meeting the requirements of the Submittal Checklist Form; Architectural Elevations of all sides of the structure and including accessory buildings; (1) oblique street-view architectural rendering if the site is flat or a minimum of (2) views if the site is located in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area (ADRA), including at least (1) view from Sunset Dr.; and a completed Project Data Sheet. Note that the installation of story poles and netting will be required during the public notice period.
One (1) full-size (24” x 36”) scaled plan set, two (2) 11” x 17” scaled sets, and a digital set of plans (thumb drive, disc, or email). Please include digital versions of ALL of the application materials as part of your Electronic Submittal. Include a Vicinity Map on the site plan. Additional copies may be needed for hearings. Required Technical Reports (biological/archaeological/botanical reports, geotechnical reports, grading plan, etc.)
Filing Fee
Project Description: (Describe the project in detail including secondary improvements such as grading, removal or alteration of septic tanks, roads, driveways, tree removal and/or pruning, accessory buildings, fences, etc. Attach additional pages as necessary) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY. PROJECT SCOPE INCLUDES: CONVERTING THE DETACHED UNIT INTO A FULLY ACCESSIBLE UNIT; SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE; REPLACEMENT OF ALL EXISTING WINDOWS, SIZE INCREASE OF ONE WINDOW ON UNIT F; NEW PAINT COLOR ON EXTERIOR OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS, NEW FENCES.
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 2 of 5 March 2020
Project Location: ___________________ Assessor Parcel No: _________________ (street address)
Present Use of the property:
Are there existing buildings? Yes No If yes, please describe: ___________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Will any existing buildings be removed or demolished? Yes No If yes, please describe:
________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Is the proposed development governed by a Development Agreement? Yes No Has any application for development on this site been made in the past to the CA Coastal Commission or the CA Coastal Zone Conservation Commission? Yes No If yes, please list application #s: ____________________________________________ Coastal Access: Is the proposed development within the first public road and the sea or Monterey Bay? Yes No If yes, is there currently public access to the shoreline on or near the site? Please describe:
______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Waters: Does the project involve diking, filling, draining, dredging or placing structures in open coastal or Monterey Bay waters, wetlands, or estuaries? Yes No If yes, state the amount of fill in cubic yards (cy) _________. What is the location of the fill receiving site? _____________________________________________________ Is an Army Corps (USACE) permit required? Yes No
Will the project effect Public Access to and along the shoreline, either directly or indirectly (i.e., removing parking used for access to the beach)? Yes No If yes, describe the impact: _______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Please check the following Utilities that will need to be extended to the proposed development:
Water Sewer Electrical Natural Gas Telephone
Is the proposed development in or near the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area (ADRA)? Yes No If yes, additional technical reports will be required. 270 Central Avenue 006-214-002-000 Main building consists of 7 apartment units and basement. One detached unit and deck at corner of Central Ave and 4th Street.
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 3 of 5 March 2020
Is the development within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) including areas with state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species, or candidate species?
Yes No If yes, additional technical reports will be required. If the development is proposed to: a) alter a spring or stream in any way; or b) effect an existing well (either onsite or offsite), contact the Planning Department for additional requirements.
Will the proposed development be visible from Sunset Drive or other mapped scenic resource areas? Yes No
Include any Tree Removal or Pruning required (a separate permit may be required).
Note the number, size, species of tree (s), and whether heavy equipment will be necessary for tree project (refer to the Tree Permit requirements on City’s Public Works website)
Is the development in or near a park or other recreation area? Yes No Is this a City Public Works project or a project being undertaken by another public agency? Yes No If yes, please contact the Planning Division for additional requirements relating to grading, dredging, fill, use of heavy equipment, additional non-City permit requirements, etc.
Will the development extend onto or adjoin any beach, tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands? Yes No If yes, please consult with Planning staff for additional requirements.
If the site contains any of the following resources, attach an explanation:
Buildings on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) or more than 50 years old;
Archaeological resources; and/or
Paleontological resources
Does the project include the development of new Lodging or the alteration of existing Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations and/or Recreation Facilities? Yes No If yes, describe how the project complies with the requirements of PGMC Sec.
23.90.220 _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
Will the development provide public or private recreational opportunities? Yes No
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 4 of 5 March 2020
Is any Grading proposed? Yes No If yes, complete the following table:
a) Amount of cut: ___ cubic yards (cy)
b) Amount of fill: ___ cy
c) Amount of import or export: ___ cy
(circle which one)
d) Max. height of cut slope: ___ ft.
e) Max. Height of fill slope: ___ ft.
f) Location of borrow or disposal: ___ ft.
Note: grading, stormwater, and erosion control plans must be attached when applicable If the project is multi-family residential, indicate:
Number of Units Total # of bedrooms per
unit (existing and
proposed)
Type of ownership
proposed
Existing # of
Units
Proposed # of
Units
Net # of units
upon
completion
Rental
Condo
Stock Coop
Timeshare
Other
Estimated cost of the proposed development (not including the cost of land) $_________ Parking and Utilities
Number of parking spaces required
Existing spaces Proposed new spaces Net # of spaces on completion of project
Project Height: (Max. height of structure as defined in the IP: the vertical distance measured between the legally established existing grade and the top-most portion of development above existing grade, unless otherwise specified)
a. Above existing (natural) grade ___________ ft.
b. Above finished grade ____________ ft.
c. As measured from centerline of frontage road __________ ft. Total # of floors in structure, including subterranean floors, lofts, and mezzanines _____ Gross Floor Area (GFA) in sq. ft. (includes garages and accessory buildings) __________ sq. ft. Lot Area _________ sq. ft.
100 30 70 0
2.5 Monterey Regional Waste Management Landfill 6 3 9
24'-6" 24'-6" 3
4,687 (no change) 10,815
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 5 of 5 March 2020
If the project includes Subdivision or a Lot Line Adjustment, indicate:
Number of Lots Size of lots to be created (indicate
gross and net lots size)
Existing # of Lots Proposed # of Lots Net # of lots upon completion
Existing Proposed
If the project is a Lot Line Adjustment or a request for Certificates of Subdivision Compliance, please provide the following:
1. “Creation documents” for all affected properties. These documents would include grant deeds or certain maps recorded prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act (Jan. 1, 1976) that include a legal description describing the property as it exists today;
2. A prelim. title report less than six (6) months old; and
3. Current grant deeds for each affected property.
6 6
PGCC 1-17-24
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DETERMINATION
(CDP, CDP Waiver, CDP Exemption)
August 2020
Date: ______________________
Determination:
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) required
CDP de minimis waiver required per PGMC 23.90.045
CDP exemption applies per PGMC 23.90.040 Section ____________________ (see below) Applicant Name: ____________________________ Assigned Planner: ________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________ Project Description: __________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ A. Existing Single-Family Residences. Improvements to an existing single-family residence, including fixtures and structures directly attached to a residence, landscaping, and structures normally associated with a single-family residence, such as garages, swimming pools, fences and storage sheds. This exemption does not include:
1. Improvements to a single-family residence if the residence or any improvement is located on a beach, in a wetland, seaward of the mean high-tide line, within an environmentally sensitive habitat area including all improvements within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area and Asilomar Conference Grounds, in an area designated highly scenic in the LCP (i.e., those areas designated in LUP Figure 4: Scenic Areas), or within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff.
2. Any significant alteration of land forms including removal or placement of vegetation on a beach, wetland, or sand dune, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff, or within an environmentally sensitive habitat area.
3. The expansion or construction of water wells or septic systems.
4. Guest houses or self-contained residential units.
5. On property not included in Subparagraph A.1 above that is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance, or in significant scenic resources areas as designated in LUP Figure 4: Scenic Areas map, when one of the following circumstances apply:
a. Improvement that would result in an increase of 10 percent or more of internal floor area of an existing structure; or
b. An additional improvement of 10 percent or less where an improvement to the structure has previously been undertaken pursuant to this section; or c. An increase in height by more than 10 percent of an existing structure; or d. An increase of height of 10 percent or less where height has already been undertaken pursuant to this section; and/or
e. Development that includes any significant non-attached structure such as garages, fences, shoreline protective works or docks.
6. Any improvement to a single-family residence where the coastal development permit issued for the original structure by the Coastal Commission or City indicated that any future improvements would require a coastal development permit or a CDP amendment or some other type of coastal authorization (e.g., a CDP waiver).
Appealable area
Non-Appealable area
11/28/2023
Hunter Eldridge A. Campbell
270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Convert existing Multiple Dwelling Residential Use to a Bed and Breakfast Inn Use.
PGCC 1-17-24
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DETERMINATION
(CDP, CDP Waiver, CDP Exemption)
August 2020
B. Other Existing Structures. Improvements to an existing structure, other than a single-family residence or public works facility, including landscaping and fixtures and other structures directly attached to the structure. This exemption does not include the exceptions 1-7 noted in 23.90.040. C. Repair or maintenance activities that do not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of those repair or maintenance activities. This exemption does not include the exceptions 1-4 noted in 23.90.040. Public Works activities that qualify are excluded from the exceptions per #3 below.
3. Those activities specifically described as exempt from CDP requirements in the document entitled Repair, Maintenance and Utility Hookups, adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 5, 1978 unless a proposed activity will have a risk of substantial adverse impact on public access, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, or public views to the ocean, in which case the 1978 document exemptions do not apply.
D. Replacement of Destroyed Structures. The replacement of any legally established structure, other than a public works facility, destroyed by a disaster. The replacement structure shall conform to applicable LCP requirements, shall be for the same use as the destroyed structure, shall not exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the destroyed structure. As used in this section, “disaster” means any situation in which the force or forces which destroyed the structure to be replaced were beyond the control of its owner; “bulk” means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure; and “structure” includes landscaping and any erosion control structure or device which is similar to that which existed prior to the occurrence of the disaster. E. Temporary Events. This exemption does not include the exceptions 1-4 noted in 23.90.040. F. Emergency Work. Immediate emergency work necessary to protect life or property, or immediate emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Please be advised that only the project described above is exempt from the permit requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program for Pacific Grove. Any change in the project may cause it to lose its exempt status. This certification is based on information provided by the project applicant. If any of the submitted information is found to be incorrect or incomplete, this exemption will become invalid, and any development occurring at that time must cease until a Coastal Development Permit or waiver is obtained.
Community Development Department
City of Pacific Grove
(831) 648-3183
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove
APPLICANT: HUNTER PORTER ELDRIDGE, AIA Coastal
REQUIRED/
Permitted
Existing Condition Proposed Condition Notes
NA R-3-PGR R-3-PGR No Change
NA 10,815 SF 10,815 SF No Change
No Change
5,407 SF (50%) 2,679 SF (24.7%) 2,679 SF (24.7%) No Change 6,489 SF (60%) 6,344 SF (58.6%) 6,230 SF (57.6%)
Excluding 400 SF of driveway
Excluding 60 SF of walkway
3,858 SF 4,687 SF 4,687 SF Existing, Non-conforming. No Change
NA NA NA
--- --- 2,463 SF
--- 0 SF 0 SF
--- 0 SF 0 SF
30'-0" 32'-0" 32'-0" Existing, Non-conforming. No Change 3 2 2 Existing, Non-conforming. No Change
8'-0" 5'-8" 5'-8" Existing, Non-conforming. No Change
10'-0" 1'-5" 1'-5" Existing, Non-conforming. No Change
10'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" Existing, Non-conforming. No Change
8'-0" for 2-stories 5'-
0" for single story
Carport : 5'-7"
Main Residence: 40'-0"
Carport: 5'-7"
Main Residence: 40'-0" No Change
Minimum 20'-0" 29'-6" 29'-6" Carport, No Change
1 2 2 No Change
1 6 7
--- 9'-0" x 18'-0" 9'-0" x 18'-0"
--- 2 2 No Change
Maximum 40% of lot width: 36'-
0"
5th St: 18'-6" 4th
St: 20'-0"
5th St: 18'-6" 4th
St: 20'-0" No Change
--- 29'-6" 29'-6" Carport, No Change
---
Front: 7'-8", East: 10'-0"
West: 12'-2", Rear: 0'-0"
Front: 7'-8", East: 10'-0"
West: 12'-2", Rear: 0'-0" No Change
---
Front/East/West: 0'-0"
Rear: 27'-0"
Front/East/West: 0'-0"
Rear: 27'-0" No Change
--- 280 SF 280 SF No Change
NA NA NA
--- 2 2 Carport & Unit H. No Change.
8'-0" >99'-0" >99'-0" No Change
9'-0" > 57'-0" > 57'-0" No Change
9'-0" 9'-10" 9'-10" No Change
5'-0" 1'-5" 1'-5" Existing, Non-conforming. No Change
42'-0" 42'-0" No Change
---
3'-0" 4'-0" Fence height at Central Ave
Front Setback (WEST)
NORTH Side Setback
SOUTH Side Setback
Rear Setback (EAST)
Garage Door Setback
Covered Parking Spaces
Uncovered Parking Spaces
Parking Space Size (Interior measurement)
Number of Driveways
Driveway Width(s)
Back-up Distance
Eave Projection (Into Setback)
PROJECT DATA SHEET
Submittal Date:
Permit Type(s) & No(s):
Zone District
Building Site Area
Density (multi-family projects only)
Building Coverage
Site Coverage
Gross Floor Area
Square Footage not counted towards Gross Floor Area
Impervious Surface Area Created and/or Replaced
Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be demolished in feet & % of total* Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be built
Building Height
Number of stories
Front Setback
EAST Side Setback
WEST
Rear Setback
*If project proposes demolition to an HRI structure, also indicate % of proposed demolition of the surface of all exterior walls facing a public street or streets, if applicable. [Rev. 01/14/14]
Fence Heights
Distances Between Eaves & Property Lines
Open Porch/Deck Projections
Architectural Feature Projections
Number & Category of Accessory Buildings
Accessory Building Setbacks (single story)
Distance between Buildings
Accessory Building Heights
PGCC 1-17-24
RESOLUTION NO. 24-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DENYING THE APPEAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) 23-0221 AND APPROVING CDP 23-0221 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 270 CENTRAL
AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A MULTI-DWELLING USE TO A BED AND BREAKFAST INN USE. THIS PROPERTY IS LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY.
FACTS
1. The subject site is located at 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, 93950; APN 006-214- 002.
2. The subject site has a land use designation of Medium High Density 10-20 du/ac (MHD 10-20) in the adopted City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).
3. The subject site is approximately 10,815 square feet in size and is currently developed with a 4,687 square foot eight-unit multifamily residence.
4. The property is located in an archaeologically sensitive area (LUP Figure 7), in the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), within the Coastal Zone, and is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
5. Per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Surveys were prepared by a qualified historian (Supernowicz, July 17, 2023). Results of the assessments were negative, and no cultural resources were observed or reported. This permit has been conditioned for archaeological and inadvertent discovery (see Conditions of Approval No. 9 & 10).
6. Per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, a Phase II Historical Assessment was prepared for the property by a qualified historian (Supernowicz, July 17, 2023) and determined the proposed project “appears to be compliant with the [Secretary of Interior’s] Standards.”
7. Per PGMC § 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, the plan set, and conducted a site visit on December 1, 2023, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The nearest point of the subject properties is over 200 feet from the shoreline and the site elevations range from approximately 53 feet to 67 feet. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.
8. Per LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, the project site is identified as having a low habitat value, and the property is a previously developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures, 4th Avenue, 5th Avenue, and Central Avenue. Additionally, staff conducted a site visit on December 1, 2023, to verify this information. The project site is over 200 feet from the nearest marine habitat. The property is further separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, one city street, and numerous residential and hospitality facilities. As designed and conditioned, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources and is consistent with the LCP, PGCC 1-17-24
including PGMC § 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas. In this case, based on available information, an initial site assessment for biological resources is not warranted.
9. The proposed project is found to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities and CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. As proposed, the project is consistent with the parameters of the Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions. Also, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the neighborhood within which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. No adverse environmental effects were identified during staff review of the development application, nor during site inspections. The exceptions to exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources do not apply to this project. There is no substantial evidence of an unusual circumstance because there is no feature or condition of the project that distinguishes the project from the exempt class. Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project has a reasonable possibility of having a significant effect on the environment or that it would result in a cumulative significant impact. Specifically, in this case, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
10. At a noticed Regular Meeting on December 14, 2023, the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission (PC) considered the project, and voted 5 - 1 -1 (5 yes, 1 no, and 1 absent) to approve the project as conditioned.
11. On December 27, 2023, the appellant submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve CDP 23-0221.
12. Pursuant to the appeal, the City of Pacific Grove City Council considered the appeal and the proposed project at a noticed public hearing on January 17, 2024.
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) The project 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 Facts 4 – 8 above and in the following findings.
2. Public Views. The project protects or enhances public views.
Per LUP Figure 4, Scenic Areas, the project site is located within a designated Scenic View Area; however, no development adversely affecting public views is proposed.
3. Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats, and natural resources consistent with the LCP.
Per LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, the project site is identified as having a low habitat value, and the property is a previously developed site in a residentially zoned PGCC 1-17-24
district surrounded by residential structures, 4th Avenue, 5th Avenue, and Central Avenue. Additionally, staff conducted a site visit on December 1, 2023, to verify this information. The project site is over 200 feet from the nearest marine habitat. The property is further separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, one city street, and numerous residential and hospitality facilities. As designed and conditioned, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources and is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC § 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Therefore, in this case, submittal of an initial site assessment for biological resources is not warranted.
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 project conforms to all applicable LUP policies and IP community design standards (PGMC 23.90.180, Coastal Community Design).
5. Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast.
As proposed, the project will have no effect on physical coastal access to or along the coast.
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.
The project includes development of a 8 overnight lodging units; therefore, the project supports and is consistent with the LCP goal of providing for visitor-serving needs.
7. Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.
Per LUP Figure 6, the subject property has a Coastal Zone Land Use Designation of Medium High Density 10-20 du/acre. LUP Policy LUD-6(d) identifies bed and breakfast facilities as allowed uses in areas designated Medium High Density 10-20 du/acre.
Therefore, the proposed use is consistent.
8. Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.
The 10,815 square foot project site is currently developed with an existing 4,687 square multifamily residence. As proposed and designed, the project will not impact coastal resources.
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. Conformance to Plans. Development and uses of the site shall conform to the approved plans labelled “270 Central Residence” project dated June 28, 2023, as amended, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code,with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.
PGCC 1-17-24
2. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within one (1) year from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.
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 Architectural Review Board and/or Planning Commission 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 by the appropriate review authority, pursuant to the Zoning Code.
5. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.
6. Public Works, Fire and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments, and Building Division, are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Any work taking place in the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.
7. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting must conform to LUP Policy DES-6. Applicant will provide a lighting plan to be included with the approved plans labelled “270 Central Residence” project dated June 28, 2023.
8. Landscape Plans. The applicant will provide Landscape plans to be included with the approved plans labelled “270 Central Residence” project dated June 28, 2023.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations. The applicant will provide low-cost accommodations at the equivalent of 25 percent of the number of high-cost accommodations pursuant to PGMC 23.90.220(c) - Lower Cost Visitor Accommodations; Protection of Low Cost Visitor Accommodations.
PGCC 1-17-24
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 denies the appeal and affirms the determination of the Planning Commission to approve CDP 23-0221.
3. The Council finds the project categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The Council also finds that the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.
4. The required Findings and Conditions of Approval are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.
5. The Council APPROVES this permit (Application No. 23-0221) to allow the conversion of a Multi-Dwelling use to a Bed and Breakfast Inn use.
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 17th day of January, 2024, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
PGCC 1-17-24
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
OWNER : RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC
A.P.N. : 006214002000CITY LAND USE : HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UP TO 19.8 DU/ACLOT & BLOCK : PACIFIC GROVE RETREAT LOT 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 BLK 9ZONING : R-3-PGR
YARD REQUIREMENTS
(a) Front Yards: Minimum of 8'-0"The minimum front yard shall be eight feet; however, to encourage architectural variety in footprint in massing, the front yard may be reduced to no less than four feet for up to 50% of the front of the building.(b) Side Yards: 10'-0" [10% of 120'-0", maximum of 10'-0"]The minimum side yards shall be 10 percent of lot width, and 20 percent of lot width for side yards abutting the street on corner lots; provided, that the minimum allowable side yard shall be three feet, and the maximum required side yard shall be 10 feet.(c) Rear Yards: Two story building: 8'-0"(d) Open Yard: 200 square feet per unit for all construction of five units or more(e) Decks and Porches: over three feet above grade may project or extend four feet over required yard area, but not closer than three feet to the property line.
ARCHAEOLOGY ZONE : YESBUTTERFLY HABITAT : NOCOASTAL ZONE : YESENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA : NOAREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE WATERSHED : YES THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH TITLE 24 AND ALL CURRENT CODES LISTED AS FOLLOWS:2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
ARCHITECTHUNTER PORTER ELDRIDGE
ARCHITECTURE
HUNTER PORTER ELDRIDGE, AIA167 FOUNTAIN AVENUE,PACIFIC GROVE, CA. 93950C: 831-277-6487O: 831-333-0700E: [email protected] LAND SURVEYORL&S ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC.2460 GARDEN ROADMONTEREY, CA 93940O: 831-655-2723E: [email protected] ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY/ ARCHEOLOGYHISTORIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES3142 BIRD ROCK ROADPEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953O: 831-641-7474E: [email protected] EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A
12/31/2025
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent.
As indicated
A0
COVERSHEET
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2024-01-02
REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX
SCOPE OF WORK
APPLICABLE CODES
APN MAP
VICINITY MAP
SHEET # Sheet Name
ARCHITECTUREA0 COVER SHEETA0.1 SURVEYA0.2 (E) SITE PLANA0.3 (P) SITE PLANA1.01 (E) BASEMENT PLANA1.02 (E) FIRST FLOOR PLANA1.03 (E) SECOND FLOOR PLANA1.04 (E) ROOF PLANA1.05 (E) CARPORT DRAWINGSA1.06 (E) ELEVATIONSA1.07 (E) ELEVATIONSA1.08 (E) UNIT H ELEVATIONSA1.11 (E) SECTIONSA1.12 (E) SECTIONSA2.01 (P) FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.02 (P) SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.05 (P) ROOF PLANA3.01 (P) ELEVATIONSA3.02 (P) ELEVATIONSA3.11 (P) SITE SECTIONSA3.40 SCHEDULEA4.01 UNIT H PLAN & INTERIOR ELEVATIONSA10.0 EXISTING 3-D VIEWSA10.1 PROPOSED 3D VIEWSA10.2 PROPOSED 3D VIEWS II 270 CENTRAL AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL
270 CENTRAL AVENUE
3D NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE
270 CENTRAL AVENUE
SITE AREA: 10,815 SFSITE COVERAGE ALLOWED: 6,489 SF (60%)EXISTING SITE COVERAGE: 6,344 SF (58.6%)3,665 SF SITE ELEMENTS (400SF DRIVEWAY & 60SF WALKWAY EXEMPTED) + 2,679 SF BUILDING COVERAGEPROPOSED SITE COVERAGE: 6,230 SF (57.6%)3,551 SF SITE ELEMENTS (400SF DRIVEWAY & 60SF WALKWAY EXEMPTED) + 2,679 SF BUILDING COVERAGE PROPOSED TURF BLOCK PARKING AREA: 1,325 SF (EXEMPT PER MUNI CODE 23.08.020 S(2)(C)BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWED: 5,407 SF (50%)EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE: 2,679 SF (24.7%)PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: 2,679 SF (24.7%) NO CHANGEGROSS FLOOR AREA ALLOWED: 3,858 SFEXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA: 4,687 SFPROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: 4,687 SF (NO CHANGE)
SITE DATA
USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY. PROJECT SCOPE INCLUDES: CONVERTING THE DETACHED UNIT TO A FULLY ACCESSIBLE UNIT; SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE; REPLACEMENT OF ALL EXISTING WINDOWS, NEW PAINT COLOR ON EXTERIOR OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS, NEW FENCES.
PROJECT DATA
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
.
.
.
.
.
.
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
A3.01
2 A3.01
1 216"
NO
PARKING
CMU RETAINING WALL
ADA PARKING IDENTIFICATION SIGN
ADA PARKING ENTRANCE
ADA UNIT 'H'
ADA VERTICAL WHEELCHAIR LIFT
(N) ENTRANCE
SIGN
108"
GUEST PARKING #1
GUEST PARKING #2GUEST PARKING #3GUEST PARKING #4
GUEST PARKING #7
EMPLOYEE PARKING
NEW BIKE RACK LOCATION
17' - 6"
23' - 0"
GUEST PARKING #6
GUEST PARKING #5
CARPORT ROOF
OVERHANG ABOVE
30"
NEW RETAINING WALLNEW PLANTERNEW SEATING WALL
6' - 0"
3 A3.11
2 A3.11
EXISTING PLANTING AREA
1 A3.11
4 A3.11
UNIT B
UNIT A
UNIT C
6 %
2 %
95' - 5"
94' - 5"
3 %
4 %
4 %
94' - 0"
98' - 0"
90' - 11"
90' - 11"
92' - 5"
94' - 0"
95' - 8"
93' - 8"
94' - 2"
LEVEL LANDING
LEVEL LANDING
LEVEL LANDING
LEVEL LANDING
LEVEL LANDING
100' - 3"
(N) TURF BLOCK PARKING SURFACE
NEW DECK/SEATING AREA
EXISTING DECK
NEW DECK/SEATING AREA
NEW DECK/SEATING AREA
CENTRAL AVE
5TH STREET
4TH STREET
5 A3.11
EV CHARGING STATION
EV CHARGING STATION
1 A3.02
A3.02
2 (N) ENTRANCE SIGN
(N) 200AMP ELECTRIC METER
(P) OAK TREE TO BE PLANTED
NEW ACCESSIBLE BIKE RACK LOCATION
A3.40
1 FRONT YARD SETBACK
8' - 0"
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
SIDE YARD SETBACK
8' - 0"
TWO-STORY REAR YARD SETBACK
SIDE YARD SETBACK
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
DRIVEWAY WIDTH
18' - 6"
DRIVEWAY WIDTH
20' - 0"
29' - 6"
DIST. BETWEEN BUILDINGS
42' - 0"
5' - 0"
SINGLE STORY REAR YARD SETBACK
CARPORT SETBACK
5' - 7"
(E) MAIN RESIDENCE REAR SETBACK
40' - 0"
WEST SIDE SETBACK
1' - 5"
9' - 10"
EXISTING CARPORT
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 3/16" = 1'-0"
A0.3
(P) SITEPLAN
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
1 (P) SITE PLAN
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
2023
-06
-28
PGCC 1-17-24
.
.
.
.
.
.
DN
DN
DN
DN
UP
A3.01
2 LIVING ROOM H
KITCHEN H
BEDROOM H
BATH H
A3.01
1 FIRE PIT
(N) WOOD DECK
5' - 0"
TV
CLOTHES
HANGER
EATING SURFACE @ 34"AFF MAX
89"
LINEN
A4.01
1 3
A3.11
2 A3.11
1 A3.11
4 A3.11
5 A3.11
LIVING ROOM C
KITCHEN C
BEDROOM B
BATHROOM B
LIVING ROOM B
BEDROOM A
LIVING ROOM A
KITCHEN A
ENTRY PORCH A
ENTRY HALL
ENTRY PORCH B
BATHROOM A
BATHROOM C
1 A3.02
3 2 1
789
1011
12 17 18 19 23 24 25 27
2931
41 40 39 36 35
45 48 47 46
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
H1
88 89 90 91 92 93
94 95
15 34
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.01
(P) FIRSTFLOORPLAN
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 (P) FIRST FLOOR
PGCC 1-17-24
REF.
REF.
REF.
.
A3.01
2 LIVING ROOM F
KITCHEN F BATH F
BEDROOM F
FIREPLACE
A3.01
1 1 A3.02
A3.02
2 595857565554
53 51 50 49
87 86
85 84 83 82 81 80 79
78 7675
74 71 72 73
70 68 69 66
626160
LIVING ROOM G
BEDROOM G
25 SF
CLST G
31 SF
CLST G
KITCHEN G
ENTRY G
BATH G
STUDIO D
BATH D
KITCHEN E
LIVING ROOM E
CLST E
BATH E
CLST F
143 SF
HALLWAY
65 64 63
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.02
(P)SECONDFLOORPLAN
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 (P) SECOND FLOOR
PGCC 1-17-24
.
A3.01
2 A3.01
1 9" / 1'-0"
8" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0"
8" / 1'-0"
3/4" / 1'-0"
4" / 1'-0"
4" / 1'-0"
9" / 1'-0" 9" / 1'-0"
4" / 1'-0" 4" / 1'-0"
1 A3.02
A3.02
2 A3.40
1 37
<varies>
44 44
44 44
44 EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 1/4" = 1'-0"
A2.05
(P) ROOFPLAN
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 (P) ROOF PLAN
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
37 (N) COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING44 (N) PAINT EXISTING OGEE GUTTERS BENJAMIN MOORE "MOUNTAIN PEAK WHITE" TYP.
<varies>
PGCC 1-17-24
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 1
97' - 7"
ROOF
117' - 11"
BASEMENT
90' - 11"
SECOND FLOOR
109' - 10"
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 2
99' - 11 1/2"
UNIT H
100' - 7"
2 A3.30
31 31
31 31
49 6
7 28
6 50
10 6
(N) SEATING AREA
(N) SEATING AREA
67 66
69 68
73 72 71
2526
2728
24 23
2219 18
21 1720
16 12
93 92 91 90 89 88
E3
47 47
63 64 65
10 44
10 29 29
29 29
(N) EXTERIOR WOODEN STAIRS, TO MATCH EXISTING
(N) EXTERIOR WOODEN STAIRS, TO MATCH EXISTING
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 1
97' - 7"ROOF
117' - 11"
2ND LANDING
107' - 4"
SECOND FLOOR
109' - 10"
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 2
99' - 11 1/2"
UNIT H
100' - 7"
2 A3.30
28 4618
46 31
31 31
31 31
6 7
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (NO CHANGE)
24' - 6"
30'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT
3 2 1
6 5
41 51 50 49
52 48 47 46 41 40 39
44 43 42
84 82 81 80 79
36 35
E4
4' - 0"
10 29
29 EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A
12/31/2025
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 1/4" = 1'-0"
A3.01
(P)ELEVATIONS
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2024-01-02
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
6 (N) WOOD RAILINGS TO MATCH EXISTING, PAINT BENJAMIN MOORE "MOUNTAIN PEAK WHITE"
7 (N) OAK TREE TO BE PLANTED10 (E) FASCIAS, TRIM AND DOORS, PAINT BENJAMIN MOORE "MOUNTAIN PEAK WHITE"18 (E) ELECTRIC METER28 (N) COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING29 (N) SOLAR PANEL ARRAY31 (E) WOOD SHAKE SIDING WITH NEW PAINT, BEHR "EXPRESS BLUE" OR APPROVED EQUAL44 (N) PAINT EXISTING OGEE GUTTERS BENJAMIN MOORE "MOUNTAIN PEAK WHITE" TYP.46 (N) ENTRANCE SIGN47 (N) BIKE RACK49 (N) ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION50 (N) ADA VERTICAL WHEELCHAIR LIFT PGCC 1-17-24
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 1
97' - 7"
ROOF
117' - 11"
BASEMENT
90' - 11"
2ND LANDING
107' - 4"
SECOND FLOOR
109' - 10"
T.O. CARPORT
94' - 8 11/16"
B.O. CARPORT
87' - 10 11/16"
31 31
31 9
8 6
6 4
28 (N) OUTDOOR SEATING AREA
31 29
33 32 30
76 75 74
77 78
34 87 86 85
45 E1
E8
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 1
97' - 7"
BASEMENT
90' - 11"
SECOND FLOOR
109' - 10"
FIRST FLOOR
LEVEL 2
99' - 11 1/2"
B.O. CARPORT
87' - 10 11/16"
28 6
9 49
6 8
46 45
31 31
31 11 10
9 8 7
62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54
1415
13 E2
E7
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 1/4" = 1'-0"
A3.02
(P)ELEVATIONS
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
KEYNOTE LEGEND
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
4 (N) CONCRETE LANDING AND STEPS6 (N) WOOD RAILINGS TO MATCH EXISTING, PAINT BENJAMIN MOORE "MOUNTAIN PEAK WHITE"
8 (E) TREE, TO REMAIN9 (E) CARPORT, TO BE RE-PAINTED28 (N) COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING TO MATCH
EXISTING
31 (E) WOOD SHAKE SIDING WITH NEW PAINT, BEHR
"EXPRESS BLUE" OR APPROVED EQUAL
4546 (N) ENTRANCE SIGN49 (N) ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION PGCC 1-17-24
UNIT H
100' - 7"
3 A3.11
4 A3.11
5 A3.11
PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
3 A3.11
4 A3.11
5 A3.11
NEW FIREPIT DECK NEW PICNIC DECK
PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
NEW EV CHARGING STATION
2 A3.11
1 A3.11
EXISTING DECK TO REMAIN
NEW FIREPIT DECK NEW PICNIC DECK NEW
PARKING PAD
2 A3.11
1 A3.11
NEW PARKING PAD
UNIT H
100' - 7"
1 A3.11
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent.
12/31/2023
1/4" = 1'-0"
A3.11
(P) SITESECTIONS
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SITE SECTION 1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SITE SECTION 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 SITE SECTION 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 SITE SECTION 4
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
5 UNIT H SITE SECTION
PGCC 1-17-24
FIXED DOUBLE HUNG
WITH LITES
CASEMENT
DOUBLE HUNG
SLIDING
DOUBLE CASEMENT
FIXED WITH LITES
CASEMENT WITH
LITES
AWNING
EXTERIOR WOOD DOOR EXTERIOR WOOD
DOOR WITH GLASS
EXTERIOR WOOD DOOR WITH PANELS
INTERIOR POCKET DOOR
A - B - C - E - NOTE: PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING FOR EMERGENCY EGRESS FROM SLEEPING ROOM REQUIREMENTS: 1. MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPERABLE DIMENSION OF 24 INCHES IN HEIGHT 2. MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPERABLE DIMENSION OF 20 INCHES IN WIDTH. 3. MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPERABLE DIMENSION OF 5.7 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. 4. SILL HEIGHTS OF SUCH OPENINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 44 INCHES ABOVE FLOOR. NOTE: SAFETY GLAZING IS REQUIRED FOR USE IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: 1. GLAZING IN INGRESS AND EGRESS DOORS. 2. GLAZING IN FIXED AND SLIDING PANELS OF SLIDING DOORS AND PANELS IN SWINGING DOORS. 3. GLAZING IN DOORS AND ENCLOSURES FOR HOT TUBS, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, STEAM ROOMS WITHIN 5' OF STANDING SURFACE AND DRAIN INLET. 4. GLAZING WITHIN 2' VERTICAL EDGE OF CLOSED DOOR AND WITHIN 5' OF WALKING SURFACES. 5. GLAZING IN RAILING AND STAIR LANDINGS. 6. GLAZING IN WALLS AND FENCES USED AS THE BARRIER FOR SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS. R308.4.3 GLAZING IN WINDOWS. GLAZING IN AN INDIVIDUAL FIXED OR OPERABLE PANEL THAT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A HAZARDOUS LOCATION: 1. THE EXPOSED AREA OF AN INDIVIDUAL PANE IS LARGER THAN 9 SQUARE FEET (0.836 M2), 2. THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE GLAZING IS LESS THAN 18 INCHES (457 MM) ABOVE THE FLOOR 3. THE TOP EDGE OF THE GLAZING IS MORE THAN 36 INCHES (914 MM) ABOVE THE FLOOR; AND 4. ONE OR MORE WALKING SURFACES ARE WITHIN 36 INCHES (914 MM), MEASURED HORIZONTALLY AND IN A STRAIGHT LINE, OF THE GLAZING. DOOR SCHEDULE NOTES 1. INTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE SOLID CORE & SELECTED BY OWNER.
2. EXTERIOR DOORS AND DOORS SEPARATING CONDITIONED SPACE FROM NON-CONDITIONED SPACE SHALL HAVE WEATHER STRIPPING.3. ALL GLAZING WITHIN A 24 INCH ARC OF EITHER VERTICAL EDGE OF A DOOR IN THE CLOSED POSITION SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZED.4. WATER HEATER CLOSET DOORS SHALL BE LOUVERED TO PROVIDE 100 SQ.IN. MAKE UP AIR. ONE OPENING SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE UPPER 12" OF THE ENCLOSURE AND ONE OPENING SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE LOWER 12" OF THE ENCLOSURE.5. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR GLAZED DOOR ASSEMBLY REQUIREMENTS, PER CRC R337.8.2.1 :
A. BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTIPANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R308 SAFETY GLAZING, OR B. BE CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS BLOCK UNITS, ORC. HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 257, OR
D. BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-2.
6. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING, PER CRC R337.8.3:
A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE
OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL, OR
B. SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF SOLID CORE WOOD THAT COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
A. STILES AND RAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 13/8 INCHES THICK B. RAISED PANELS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 11/4 IN THICK, EXCEPT FOR THE EXTERIOR PERIMETER OF THE RAISED PANEL THAT MAY TAPER TO A TONGUE NOT LESS THAN 3/8 INCH THICK.
C. SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252.
D. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1.
7. EGRESS DOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH CRC R311.2: NOT LESS THAN ONE EGRESS DOOR SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. THE EGRESSDOOR SHALL BE SIDE-HINGED, AND SHALL PROVIDE A CLEAR WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 32 INCHES (813 MM) WHERE MEASURED BETWEEN THE FACE OF THE DOOR AND THE STOP, WITH THE DOOR OPEN 90 DEGREES (1.57 RAD). THE CLEAR HEIGHT OF THE DOOR OPENING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 78 INCHES (1981 MM) IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE THRESHOLD TO THE BOTTOM OF THE STOP. OTHER DOORS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THESE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS. EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPENABLE FROM INSIDE THE DWELLING WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT.
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 As indicated
A3.40
SCHEDULE
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
Door Schedule
MARK FUNCTION
TYPE
MARK WIDTH HEIGHT
HEAD
HEIGHT ROOM COMMENTS
E1 Exterior A 3' - 0" 7' - 0" 7' - 0" LIVING ROOM AE2 Exterior B 3' - 0" 6' - 8" 6' - 8" ENTRY HALLE3 Exterior A 3' - 0" 6' - 6" 6' - 6" KITCHEN CE4 Exterior A 2' - 6" 7' - 6" 9' - 10 1/2" ENTRY PORCH BE5 Exterior C 2' - 8" 6' - 6" 6' - 10" KITCHEN H TEMPERED GLASSE6 Exterior E 3' - 0" 6' - 6" 6' - 6" BASEMENTE7 Exterior A 3' - 0" 3' - 9" 5' - 9" BASEMENTE8 Exterior A 2' - 8" 6' - 0" 4' - 0 3/16" BASEMENTH1 Interior E 2' - 10 1/2" 6' - 8" 6' - 8" BEDROOM HH2 Interior D 2' - 6" 6' - 8" 6' - 8" BEDROOM B Window Schedule
MARK FUNCTION
Rough Openings
WIDTH HEIGHT HEAD HEIGHT ROOM NAME COMMENTS
1 CASEMENT 1' - 4 3/4" 3' - 6 3/8" 8' - 2 1/4" LIVING ROOM A2 FIXED 3' - 8" 3' - 6 3/8" 8' - 2 1/4" LIVING ROOM A3 CASEMENT 1' - 4 3/4" 3' - 6 3/8" 8' - 2 1/4" LIVING ROOM A4 FIXED 1' - 4 3/4" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 4 11/16" LIVING ROOM A5 FIXED 3' - 8" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 4 11/16" LIVING ROOM A6 FIXED 1' - 4 3/4" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 4 11/16" LIVING ROOM A7 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 11 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 1/8" LIVING ROOM A8 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 11 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 1/8" LIVING ROOM A9 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 11 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 1/8" LIVING ROOM A10 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 11 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 1/8" LIVING ROOM A11 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 11 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 1/8" LIVING ROOM A12 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 11 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 1/8" LIVING ROOM A13 CASEMENT 1' - 9 1/2" 2' - 0 11/16" 6' - 1 3/16" BASEMENT14 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 9" 4' - 9 1/16" 6' - 10 7/16" LIVING ROOM C15 FIXED 2' - 9" 1' - 6 5/16" 8' - 5 3/8" LIVING ROOM C16 AWNING 1' - 9 1/2" 2' - 0 11/16" 6' - 1 3/16" BASEMENT17 CASEMENT 1' - 9 1/2" 5' - 0 1/16" 7' - 8 15/16" LIVING ROOM C18 FIXED 4' - 5 3/4" 5' - 0 1/16" 7' - 8 15/16" LIVING ROOM C19 CASEMENT 1' - 9 1/2" 5' - 0 1/16" 7' - 8 15/16" LIVING ROOM C20 FIXED 1' - 9 1/2" 2' - 0 11/16" 9' - 7 1/2" LIVING ROOM C21 FIXED 4' - 5 3/4" 2' - 0 11/16" 9' - 7 1/2" LIVING ROOM C22 FIXED 1' - 9 1/2" 2' - 0 11/16" 9' - 7 1/2" LIVING ROOM C23 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 9" 2' - 9 1/16" 6' - 9 3/16" KITCHEN C24 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 9" 2' - 9 1/16" 6' - 9 3/16" KITCHEN C25 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 7 3/8" 3' - 9 1/8" 6' - 3" BEDROOM B26 FIXED 2' - 7 3/8" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 9 15/16" BEDROOM B27 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 7 3/8" 3' - 9 1/8" 6' - 3" BEDROOM B28 FIXED 2' - 7 3/8" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 9 15/16" BEDROOM B29 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 7 3/8" 3' - 9 1/8" 6' - 3" BEDROOM B30 FIXED 2' - 7 3/8" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 9 15/16" BEDROOM B31 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 7 3/8" 3' - 9 1/8" 6' - 3" BEDROOM B32 FIXED 2' - 7 3/8" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 9 15/16" BEDROOM B33 CASEMENT 2' - 6 1/2" 3' - 2 1/2" 7' - 11 5/16" BASEMENT34 SLIDING 3' - 8 1/2" 2' - 5 1/2" 10' - 0 7/16" BATHROOM B35 CASEMENT 1' - 4 3/4" 4' - 5 1/2" 7' - 7 13/32" LIVING ROOM B36 FIXED 3' - 8" 4' - 5 1/2" 7' - 7 13/32" LIVING ROOM B39 CASEMENT 1' - 4 3/4" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 3/4" LIVING ROOM B40 FIXED 3' - 1 1/4" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 3/4" LIVING ROOM B41 CASEMENT 1' - 4 3/4" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 3/4" LIVING ROOM B42 FIXED 1' - 4 3/4" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 6 11/16" LIVING ROOM B43 FIXED 3' - 1 1/4" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 6 11/16" LIVING ROOM B44 FIXED 1' - 4 3/4" 1' - 6 5/16" 7' - 6 11/16" LIVING ROOM B45 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 7 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" KITCHEN A46 DOUBLE HUNG 1' - 3 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" KITCHEN A47 DOUBLE HUNG 3' - 1 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" KITCHEN A48 DOUBLE HUNG 1' - 3 3/8" 5' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" KITCHEN A49 CASEMENT 2' - 3 3/8" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" LIVING ROOM G50 FIXED 5' - 10 3/8" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" LIVING ROOM G51 CASEMENT 2' - 3 3/8" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" LIVING ROOM G52 FIXED 2' - 6" 1' - 8 1/16" 1' - 10 1/32" LIVING ROOM G53 CASEMENT 1' - 9 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" LIVING ROOM G54 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" BEDROOM G55 FIXED 2' - 6 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" BEDROOM G56 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" BEDROOM G57 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" BEDROOM F58 FIXED 2' - 6 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" BEDROOM F59 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" BEDROOM F60 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" LIVING ROOM F61 FIXED 2' - 6 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" LIVING ROOM F62 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 3 3/4" LIVING ROOM F63 CASEMENT 1' - 8" 5' - 0" 6' - 6 9/16" LIVING ROOM F64 FIXED 4' - 8" 5' - 0" 6' - 6 7/16" LIVING ROOM F65 CASEMENT 1' - 8" 5' - 0" 6' - 6 9/16" LIVING ROOM F66 DOUBLE CASEMENT 2' - 9" 3' - 3 1/16" 7' - 1 1/8" KITCHEN F67 FIXED WITH LITES 2' - 6" 1' - 8 1/16" 10' - 1 1/16" LIVING ROOM F68 AWNING 2' - 6" 3' - 0 1/16" 6' - 4 15/16" BATH F69 AWNING 2' - 6" 3' - 0 1/16" 6' - 4 15/16" BATH E70 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 7/16" LIVING ROOM E71 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 0 1/4" LIVING ROOM E72 FIXED 4' - 4" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 0 1/4" LIVING ROOM E73 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 0 1/4" LIVING ROOM E74 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 7/16" LIVING ROOM E75 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 7/16" LIVING ROOM E76 FIXED 3' - 0" 3' - 6 3/8" 5' - 11 7/16" LIVING ROOM E77 DOUBLE HUNG WITH LITES 2' - 0" 3' - 0" 10' - 3 1/16" ATTIC78 SLIDING 5' - 8 1/2" 3' - 1 1/2" 6' - 0 5/16" KITCHEN E79 FIXED 4' - 2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" KITCHEN E80 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" KITCHEN E81 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" STUDIO D82 FIXED 3' - 9" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" STUDIO D83 FIXED 3' - 9" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" STUDIO D84 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" STUDIO D85 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" KITCHEN G86 FIXED 2' - 6 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" KITCHEN G87 CASEMENT 1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6 3/8" 6' - 1 5/8" KITCHEN G88 CASEMENT WITH LITES 1' - 7 3/8" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" KITCHEN H89 CASEMENT WITH LITES 1' - 7 3/8" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" KITCHEN H90 CASEMENT WITH LITES 1' - 7 3/8" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" LIVING ROOM H91 CASEMENT WITH LITES 1' - 7 3/8" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" LIVING ROOM H92 CASEMENT WITH LITES 1' - 7 3/8" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" LIVING ROOM H93 CASEMENT WITH LITES 1' - 7 3/8" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" LIVING ROOM H94 DOUBLE HUNG 2' - 4" 4' - 0 25/32" 7' - 0 25/32" BEDROOM H95 SLIDING 2' - 11 1/2" 0' - 11 1/2" 6' - 10" BATHROOM H SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"WINDOWS
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"DOORS
NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL WINDOW AND DOOR ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS, LOCATIONS, AND OPERATING DIRECTION (I.E., INSWING VS. OUTSWING) PRIOR TO ORDERING NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS PGCC 1-17-24
.
.
DN
A4.01
2 5
3 4
TV
EATING SURFACE @ 34"AFF MAX
18"
36"
36"
36"
60"
30"
60"
24"
A4.01
A4.01 7
10 9
8 6
61"
16 1/2"
12"
32"
12" 24"
BATHROOM
BEDROOM
LIVING
KITCHEN
FIREPIT PATIO
16"
60"
56"
16"
26"
20" MAX
CLOSET
10 1/2"
12"
CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AREA FOR PERSONAL LIFT DEVICE
30"
SHELVING
40 1/2"
40"
NO
PARKING
CMU RETAINING WALL
ADA PARKING IDENTIFICATION SIGN
ADA VERTICAL WHEELCHAIR LIFT
GUEST PARKING #1
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION
ENTRANCE SIGN
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent.
12/31/2023
3/8" = 1'-0"
A4.01
UNIT HPLAN &INTERIORELEVATIONS
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
1 (P) FIRST FLOOR - UNIT H
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
2 H - BATH EAST
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
3 H - BATH WEST
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
4 H - BATH SOUTH
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
5 H - BATH NORTH
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
6 BEDROOM SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
7 LIVING BEDROOM / EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
8 BEDROOM/ LIVING WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
9 LIVING/ KITCHEN SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"
10 KITCHEN/LIVING NORTH ELEVATION
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 A10.1
PROPOSED3D VIEWS
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE:
2 VIEW FROM UNIT H TOWARDS SEATING AREAS
SCALE:
3 PROPOSED SEATING AREAS
SCALE:
4 VIEW FROM BACK PARKING LOT TOWARDS SEATING AREAS
SCALE:
1 SITE AERIAL VIEW
PGCC 1-17-24
EG
ELDRID
PORT
E
R
HUNTER
ED
NS
E
ICL
ST
NIA
TCE
IT
CH
AR
C-32809
Renewal Date:
A 12/31/2015
TE
OF
CALIFOR
ISSUE DATESCONSULTANT
PO BOX 716 | PACIFIC GROVE |CALIFORNIA 93950
O: 831.333.0700 | M: 831.277.6487
E: [email protected] | www.hpe-arch.com
Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these plans. These plans and drawings are not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever without first obtaining the express written permission and consent of Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture, nor are they to be assigned to any third party without obtaining said written permission and consent. 23 A10.2
PROPOSED3D VIEWSII
006-214-002-000
270 CENTRAL AVE, PACIFIC GROVE. CA.
270 CENTRAL RESIDENCE
2023-06-28
SCALE:
1 VIEW HEADED WEST ON CENTRAL
SCALE:
2 VIEW HEADED EAST ON CENTRAL
SCALE:
3 VIEW FROM 5TH STREET
SCALE:
4 VIEW FROM 4TH STREET
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [ 1 ]
A. TITLE PAGE
PHASE II HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT OF
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 006-214-002,
270 CENTRAL AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE,
MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 93950
JULY 17, 2023
PREPARED FOR:
Hunter Porter Eldridge, AIA
P.O. Box 716
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
PREPARED BY:
Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA
Historic Resource Associates
3142 Bird Rock Road
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [2]
B. TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Title Page . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Table of Contents . . . . . . . . 2
C. Introduction . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Historic Context . . . . . . . . . 20
E. Property Description . . . . . . . . 23
F. Evaluation of Significance . . . . . . . 27
G. Impacts of the Proposed Project . . . . . . 28
H. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . 29
I. Appendices . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 1: Project Location Map
Figure 2: 3D Aerial View of the Project Area
Figure 3: 3D Aerial View of 270 Central Avenue
Figure 4: Proposed Project Design Plans
Figures 5-7: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [3]
C. INTRODUCTION
Historic Resource Associates (HRA) has completed a Phase II Historical Assessment of 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California (Figures 1-3). The architectural study was conducted to meet permit requirements imposed by the City of Pacific Grove in accordance with proposed project design plans (Figure 4) for the aforementioned multi-family Craftsman shingle style, wood-frame residence, built in circa 1911, according to the Pacific Grove Building Department Permit files.
The proposed project involves acquiring a use permit to convert an existing multi-family residence into a bed and breakfast facility. The project scope includes converting the detached unit (rental cottage) into a fully accessible unit; site improvements to increase accessibility compliance; replacement of all existing windows with like materials; and increasing the size of one window on Unit F.
According to the City of Pacific Grove, “a historic assessment is a survey and evaluation that is used to determine the significance of a building, site, object or structure. The survey contains a description of the building, site, object or structure as well as information about its historical background and surrounding area.” This phase of analysis, known as a Phase I Historical Assessment, was completed by Hannah Simonson of Page & Turnbull in 2019. The subject property was determined to be a “significant resource” per the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources and Pacific Grove’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Rev. 08/03/2017 Code Chapter 23.76, and is listed on the City of Pacific Grove’s Register of Historic Properties.
According to the City of Pacific Grove, “a Phase II Assessment provides a more detailed evaluation of the resource and examines how a project will affect its significance. In addition, a Phase II Historical Assessment should provide potential mitigation measures for consideration by the City of Pacific Grove to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, if possible, or a clear statement that the proposal will cause a significant impact to the resource which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
If a property is listed or has been determined eligible for listing on the National or California Registers or is listed on the Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory, a Phase II Assessment is automatically required.”
The Phase II Historical Assessment of the subject property was completed by Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA, who is a Registered Historian, Architectural Historian, and Archaeologist with Monterey County. Supernowicz has owned and operated Historic Resource Associates since the mid-1980s, served as principal historian for the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Transportation, and worked for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as a staff project reviewer. Supernowicz has been performing architectural and archaeological assessments in Monterey County and Pacific Grove since the 1990s, and meets or exceed the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for the aforementioned professions. The Phase II Historical Assessment was completed in July 2023, in part using background information provided in the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms prepared by Hannah Simonson of Page & Turnbull on October 10, 2019 (Appendix 2:
DPR Site Records).
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [4]
Figure 1: Project Location Map
(USGS 7.5’ Monterey, California Topographic Map).
270 Central Avenue
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [5]
Figure 2: 3D Aerial view of 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove looking north.
Project Location
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [6]
Figure 3: 3D aerial view of 270 Central Avenue.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [7]
Figure 4: Proposed Project Design Plans
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [8]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [9]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [10]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [11]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [12]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [13]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [14]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [15]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [16]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [17]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [18]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [19]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [20]
D. HISTORIC CONTEXT
Pacific Grove was founded in 1875 by a group of Methodists who modeled the town after Ocean Grove, New Jersey. In time, the butterflies, fragrant pines and fresh sea air brought others to the Pacific Grove Retreat to rest and meditate. The initial meeting of the Pacific Coast branch of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle was held in Pacific Grove in June 1879. Modeled after the Methodist Sunday school teachers’ training camp established in 1874 at Lake Chautauqua, New York, this location became part of a nationwide educational network. In November 1879, after the summer campers returned home, Robert Louis Stevenson wandered into the deserted campgrounds: "I have never been in any place so dreamlike. Indeed, it was not so much like a deserted town as like a scene upon the stage by daylight, and with no one on the boards." The Pacific Grove post office opened in 1886, closed later that year, and was re-opened in 1887. Pacific Grove incorporated in 1889 (McLane 1952).
Pacific Grove, like Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey, became an artists' haven in the 1890s and subsequent period. Artists of the plein air school in both Europe and the United States were seeking an outdoor venue which had natural beauty, so that Pacific Grove was a magnet for this movement.
William Adam was an English painter who first moved to Monterey and then decided on Pacific Grove for his home in 1906. At about the same time Eugen Neuhaus, a German painter, arrived in Pacific Grove with his new bride. Charles B. Judson was an artist of aristocratic lineage who painted in Pacific Grove over a long period of time beginning in 1907; Judson's murals decorate the halls of the California Academy of Sciences (McLane 1952).
For a number of years, John Steinbeck lived in a cottage in Pacific Grove owned by his father, Ernest, who was Monterey County Treasurer. The cottage still stands on a quiet side street, without any plaque or special sign, virtually overlooked by most Steinbeck fans. In Steinbeck's book Sweet Thursday, a chapter is dedicated to describing a likely fictional rivalry that arose among the town's residents over the game of roque. Local traditions include a Butterfly Parade, in which elementary schoolchildren dress in costumes and march through town, and the Feast of Lanterns, a Chinese-styled pageant in which a high school girl and her companions act out a melodrama (McLane 1952).
The Asilomar Conference Grounds, now part of the California State Park system, lie to the south of the subject property. At the end of the 19th century, the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) played an active role in providing shelter for the young women who were coming to the nation's big cities in search of low-paying jobs in factories and offices. The YWCA housing included educational and vocational classroom facilities, where these young women could take classes in practical subjects, such as money management, sewing, cooking, and typing. The YWCA staff, students, and supporters met periodically to discuss women's issues of that time. These meetings eventually led to the formation of the YWCA Regional Leadership Conferences, and the western region was called the Pacific Coast Field Committee (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2023).
The Asilomar concept was first born in 1897, when the YWCA held its first western regional conference at Mills College near Oakland, California. Later, between 1900 and 1911, the Pacific Coast Field Committee conferred each year at the old Hotel Capitola near the beach at Santa Cruz. The committee was then composed of some of the most influential and prestigious women in California:
Phoebe Apperson Hearst (mother of pioneer publisher, William Randolph Hearst), Ellen Browning Scripps (a successful publisher), Mrs. Warren Olney and Mary Sroufe Merrill (who authored a history of Asilomar and its founding) (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2023).
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [21]
In 1912, the Hotel Capitola was destroyed by fire, and that summer Phoebe Apperson Hearst opened her estate, Hacienda del Pozo Verona, near Livermore, for the YWCA's leadership conference. The conference was held in a miniature tent city furnished with iron beds, mattresses, blankets, electricity and running water for over 300 attendees. The red and white canvas tents and equipment that Hearst provided were later to become the original furnishings of Asilomar. It was at this conference that Hearst embraced the YWCA's idea to build a western conference ground (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2023).
The Pacific Improvement Company, whose Monterey area assets became the basis for what is now known as the Pebble Beach Company, donated thirty acres facing the Pacific Ocean on the Monterey Peninsula to the YWCA. The deed stipulated that the YWCA would pay the property taxes and that $30,000 of improvements were to be made on the property over the next ten years. The National Board accepted the offer, and the western conference grounds became a reality. That same year, the YWCA hired Julia Morgan, a San Francisco architect, and work began immediately. With funds donated by YWCA members and supporters, the Administration Building (Phoebe Apperson Hearst Social Hall), the Engineer's Cottage, the tent houses and the large granite entrance gates were built (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2023).
In July 1913, those were the only structures standing when 300 young women attended Asilomar's first YWCA student leadership conference. Meals were served in a central dining tent. While these facilities would be considered spartan today, they did offer electricity, running water, and bathing facilities. The facility at Capitola had been known as "Guardamar," and in 1913, the YWCA held a contest to name their new property on the Monterey Peninsula. They received hundreds of entries. The winning name came from a Stanford University student, Helen Salisbury, who made up the word Asilomar, derived from the Spanish words "asilo" meaning retreat or refuge, and "mar," meaning sea, hence "refuge-by-the-sea" (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2023).
HISTORY OF 270 CENTRAL AVENUE
Historic records suggest the subject property was built in the retreat area of Pacific Grove around 1910, replacing a smaller single-story residence that is depicted on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Figure 5). Around 1910-1911, the property was owned by Sarah Parke, who was reportedly the heir to the Parke Pharmaceutical Company (Parke-Davis Drugs). It is likely Sarah Parke had the original home demolished and the current two-story house built. Parke reportedly died in the spring of 1943, and the property was acquired by Margaret Gertrude Mitchell. According to her daughter, Margaret began renting rooms in September 1943, and by the end of World War II she was renting out eight rooms. At the end of war, Sarah recognized that rooms would not be so easy to rent and began remodeling the house, dividing and rearranging rooms to create studio apartments. By 1949-1950 she was renting five studio apartments in addition to her own living space. One of the upstairs rooms was set aside for visiting friends and relatives of apartment tenants. The double garage on the corner of 4th Street and Central Avenue was converted to a one-bedroom cottage or apartment in the early1950s. Between 1950 and 1960, all the apartments went through several remodels, and in the 1980s, all the apartments were completely remodeled and upgraded with new plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. Windows were rebuilt and insulation was added to make the apartments more energy efficient. Ms. Mitchell sold the property in 1991, and died in Portland Oregon in 1997 (Letter on file with the City of Pacific Grove, Building Department, June 1, 2002). .
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [22]
Figure 5: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Pacific Grove, California, 1904.
Figure 6: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Pacific Grove, California, 1914.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [23]
Figure 7: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Pacific Grove, California, June 1926, revised May 1962.
As depicted in Figures 5-7, the massing of 270 Central Avenue remained largely the same through the 1960s, although the revised Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1962 shows the parcel divided into two with the building along 4th Street still designated as a garage. It is also apparent that after 1962 additional land was acquired towards Ocean View Avenue, expanding the overall size of the parcel and adding a carport on the downslope to the north, where another residence once stood.
E. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The two-story, “L” shaped residence is a classic example of a shingle style Craftsman design. Character defining features of the residence include the “L” shaped massing; moderately steep gable roof; cantilevered square front bay window; stained wood shingle siding; wood-sash windows of varying sizes, shapes, and design, including casement and double-hung with single and multi-lighted sashes; dormers; and a front porch supported by square Craftsman style columns. Another characteristic of the property is the fact it was remodeled in the 1940s to create multiple units that were rented out.
The former garage along 4th Street was also converted to a rental in the 1960s, although the overall massing and shingle siding appears to be consistent with the original design of the house.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [24]
Photograph 1: View looking southeast at the northwest elevation of the property.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [25]
Photograph 2: View looking northwest at the south wing of the property.
Photograph 3: View looking west at the
front of the property facing Central Avenue.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [26]
Photograph 4: View looking east at the northwest elevation of the residence and the carport from 5th Street.
Photograph 5: View looking west at
the northeast elevation of the property.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [27]
Photograph 6: View looking southwest at the property from 4th Street.
F. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
The subject property, which was reportedly built by the Chivers Brothers, was evaluated for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and the City of Pacific Grove criteria and determined in 2019 to rate as a “5S1.” The residence was formally recorded using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms by Hannah Simonson of Page & Turnbull on October 10, 2019 (Appendix 2: DPR Site Records).
Specifically, the property was found to be eligible for the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3, and under Pacific Grove Municipal Code 23.76 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. The property is currently a Registered Historic Property with the City of Pacific Grove. It is recommended that the period of significance for the property be extended from circa 1910 through 1950, due to its association with World War II and the conversion of a multi-family rental property. The garage should be considered a non-contributing part of the property since it was remodeled in the 1960s into another rental unit on the parcel and no longer conveys its original function and use. The current landscaping does not appear to be a contributing element to the property as well, most of which appears to have been installed in the post-1980s or later.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [28]
G. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As previously described, the proposed project involves acquiring a use permit to convert an existing multi-family residence into a bed and breakfast facility. The project scope includes converting the detached unit (rental cottage) into a fully accessible unit; site improvements to increase accessibility compliance; replacement of all existing windows with like materials; increasing the size of one window on Unit F. (Figure 4).
H. MITIGATION
Per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) a project that complies with the Standards is considered to have mitigated the changes to less than significant. The Standards include four levels of treatment:
Stabilization (maintaining the condition of a property until the plans are approved).
Restoration (returning a property to its condition during the period of significance using tools, methods and materials of the original).
Rehabilitation (returning a property to a useful condition while maintaining the features of its significance).
Reconstruction (when a property is destroyed or beyond rehabilitation and the loss impacts other properties or the understanding of history).
The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. It should be noted that property’s historic landscape no longer exists and the former two-car garage was converted in the 1960s to a rental, thus altering its function and design. Therefore, the former garage and landscaping are not contributing elements to the property.
In applying the Standards, the term “Rehabilitation” is the most appropriate in describing the current plans for 270 Central Avenue. In this regard, the Standard is met by retaining the historic use of the property as rental, which would be consistent with the change to a bed and breakfast, and retaining the historic character and fabric of the property by using similar materials and design for new windows and doors without altering the property’s original openings. It is recommended to maintain an exterior color scheme consistent with Craftsman shingle-style architecture of the period, namely the 1910s.
In summary, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 states; “generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995 as amended) shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [29]
Taking into consideration the various alterations to the residence since its original construction around 1910-1911, particularly during the 1940s, and the fact that the current project appears to be compatible in use, design, and architectural details to the original residence, the project appears to be compliant with the Standards.
I. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: References
Asilomar Conference Grounds Website. “Park History.” www.visitasilomar.com/discover/parkhistory. Accessed July 2023.
Breschini, Gary S. The Founding of Monterey. Monterey County Historical Society, Local History Pages - The Colonization of Monterey. http://users.dedot.com/mchs/colonization.html. 1996.
Coventry, Kim. Images of America: Monterey Peninsula: The Golden Age. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL. 2003.
Gordon, B. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood Press. 1979.
Owens, T. and J. M. Hall. The Insider’s Guide to California’s Monterey Peninsula. Second Edition. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot/Falcon. 2000.
Pacific Grove Building Department. Letter on file with the City of Pacific Grove. June 1, 2002.
Page & Turnbull. City of Pacific Grove, Historic Context Statement. October 31, 2011.
Page & Turnbull. Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Survey Report. August 2, 2018, revised October 18, 2019.
Sanborn Insurance Publishing Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Pacific Grove, California, 1888-1960.
Schoenherr, A. A Natural History of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1992.
USGS 7.5' Monterey, California Topographic Quadrangle Map, 1955, revised 1980.
Watkins, R. C. History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California. S.J. Clarke Publishing, Chicago. 1925.
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [30]
Appendix 2: DPR Site Records
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [31]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [32]
PGCC 1-17-24
Phase II Historical Assessment 270 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [33]
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 11 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Appeal of Coastal Development Permit 22-0264 for 111 10th St (APN 006-218-001-000)
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission determination, and approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0264 based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).
DISCUSSION
Site Description
The subject property is located at 111 10th Street on the Northeast Corner of 10th and Pearl Streets and is zoned R-3-PGR. The 3,600 square foot lot has an existing 1,117 square foot two-story single-family dwelling with a 398 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The single-family dwelling and "carriage port" were constructed in 1926. The date at which the garage was enlarged and converted into an accessory dwelling unit could not be determined.
The property is located in the Coastal Zone, an archaeologically sensitive area, and the City's Area of Special Biological Significance. The property is also listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, a Phase II Historical Assessment (Archives & Archaeology, August 14, 2022; attached) prepared for the property by a qualified historian concluded the potential impact (actual and visual) of the proposed project to the historic resource is “construed [to be] nominal.”
Surrounding Land Uses
The property is located in a residential neighborhood and is surrounded by small-, medium-, and large-sized one- and two-story single and multi-family residences in the Pacific Grove Retreat neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the project site are developed with two-story single and multi-family residences.
Project Description
The applicant proposes the major remodel of an existing 1,117 square foot two-story single-family dwelling with an existing 398 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The applicant PGCC 1-17-24
proposes to connect the main level of the single-family dwelling to the existing detached ADU with a new 304 square foot first floor addition. The existing ADU would be converted to both new first floor living space and an attached 185 square foot garage. A new 276 square foot second floor addition to the existing rear second floor addition would be added to the existing rear second floor. The proposed project includes a new 403 square foot driveway and a new 324 square foot wooden deck (24 inches above grade). The proposed project would result in the construction of a 2,096 square foot two-story single-family dwelling (1,911 square feet of living space with a 185 square foot attached garage). No tree removal is proposed.
Background and Summary of Appeal
On August 23, 2023, the applicant presented the proposed project before the Historic Resources Committee (HRC). At that time the HRC continued the item identifying the following concerns:
The roof height of the proposed addition was taller than the existing structure and should be reduced.
The massing of the proposed additions appear overwhelming and did not blend well with neighborhood conditions.
The proposed additions did not show a substantial differentiation between the new work from the existing and therefore did not meet the Secretary of Interior's guidelines for rehabilitation.
In response to these concerns the applicant submitted revised plans dated 9-13-2023 that:
Reduced building height of the proposed additions to be no taller than the existing structure (revised plan pages A6.0 & A6.1);
Provided a Mass Study with 3D Perspectives and a Mass Study Field Analysis (revised plan pages A4.2 & A4.3);
Detailed new windows on the south elevation of the 2nd floor hallway (revised plan A6.0) and new window detail (revised plan page 8.0).
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023, the HRC received a report from the applicant and discussed the revised plans. A motion was made to recommend to the Planning Commission denial of the proposed plans as presented on the grounds that the applicant failed to adequately address the "overwhelming" massing of the new addition. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 vacancy.
At the November 9, 2023, regular meeting of the Planning Commission, a motion was made and carried to re-notice the subject project and continue to the December 14, 2023, regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
At the December 14, 2023, regular meeting of the Planning Commission, a motion was made to approve AP 22-0264 & CDP 22-0264 adding LUP policy SCE- 9 (Trees that are visually integral part of the coastline and contribute to the scenic views in the Coastal Zone shall be protected or, when necessary to remove, including due to disease or danger to existing structures, replanted to ensure their continued scenic utility) to findings and a condition stating that “Development shall follow all provisions and standards outlined in the City of Pacific Grove Information Bulletin No. 29: Tree Guidelines During Development.” The motion passed with 4 ayes, 2 nays, and one absent.
On December 27, 2023, two appellants submitted timely appeals (attached) of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP).
The first appellant contended that the project, as approved, was not consistent with the following Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP) policies:
DES-1. All new development shall be consistent with requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program, including the certified Land Use Designations figure (Figure 6).
DES-4. Development standards for scenic areas, including those identified in Figure 4, shall PGCC 1-17-24
minimize land coverage, grading, and structure height, and provide for setbacks from adjacent public open space areas.
CRS-6. All proposed development actions, including City public works projects, shall be Consistent with maintaining the current scale and character of the Pacific Grove Retreat.
CRS-7. Rehabilitation, reconstruction, remodeling, or exterior modification of existing structures with historic or architectural significance in the Pacific Grove Retreat, and otherneighborhoods in the Coastal Zone, shall relate to or retain the lines of the original designas much as possible and alterations shall provide evidence of substantial compliance to the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic resources.
CRS-8. Design review shall be required as part of the Coastal Development process in order to maintain historical continuity and visual harmony of new development within the Pacific Grove Retreat and other neighborhoods in the Coastal Zone.
SCE-3. Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses or are locally important historic areas.
SCE-5. The City will designate scenic areas of the Coastal Zone, including those areas described in Policy SCE-3, as areas having special scenic significance requiring the imposition of project-specific development standards designed to protect these scenic areas (refer toFigure 4, Scenic Areas).
This appellant (Ciani) did not provide any evidence of fact for the basis of appeal (see attached appeal application). Staff recommends that this appeal be denied without discussion due to lack of pertinent facts supporting the basis for the appeal (PGMC 23.90.100 Appeals of CDP decisions - The appeal shall state the pertinent facts and the basis for the appeal, and shall be filed with applicable fees to the city clerk.)
The second appellant (Rudolph/Ridgley/Ellis) contended the appeal is based on the following points:
Neighborhood and Visual Impacts.
Appellant contends that the “added mass of the project and potential loss of major portions of, or all of, the cypress tree will substantially alter the views from neighboring properties, the streets and Berwick Park.”
Appellant contends that the applicant did not submit mass studies to show the impact on the neighboring property owners.
The application has not met the City’s tree protection requirements expressed in Information Bulletin 29: Tree Guidelines During Development.
Appellant contends that “deferring the arborist’s report does not allow the staff, community, decision-making bodies and possibly even the applicant and the designer to fully understand the potential adverse impact of the project on the cypress tree.” CEQA Guidelines Class 1 (existing facilities) or Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) exemptions do not apply.
Concerning the Class 1 exemption, the appellant contends that “there is no basis upon which to consider this project to be a “minor alteration…involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.”
Concerning the Class 31exemption, the appellant contends that “this project is not a ‘maintenance, repair…or reconstruction project.’”
Adverse impacts to a significant historic resource.
Appellant contends that the project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation.
Regarding the contention of Neighborhood and Visual Impacts:
Land Use Plan (LUP) Ch. 2.3.3 regarding LUP policies on scenic resources states, “it is understood that these policies preserve public coastal views and do not place restrictions on PGCC 1-17-24
private views.”
The project applicant has provided mass studies to demonstrate potential impact to the public viewshed (see Site Plan pages A4.2 &A4.3).
The appellant has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate adverse effects to the public coastal views or inconsistency with the Local Coastal Program (LCP).
Regarding the contention of the City’s tree protection requirements:
As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission required that all elements of Information Bulletin 29: Tree Guidelines During Development be followed (attached).
Regarding the contention that Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities does not apply:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities: “The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.”
The proposed project does not expand the use. The current use of the land is single-family residential with one accessory dwelling unit. The proposed project would result in one single-family dwelling unit.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 provides examples of projects eligible for this exemption:
15301(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
10,000 square feet if:
The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General plan and The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
The existing gross floor area is 1,515 square feet. 50 percent of which is 757.5 square feet. 1,515+757.5=2,272.5 square feet. The proposed total gross floor area is 2,096 square feet.
The proposed project meets both square footage elements of this exemption.
The appellant has not provided substantial or relevant evidence to support this contention.
Regarding the contention that Class 31 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) does not apply:
The Secretary of the Interior defines rehabilitation as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. (Technical Preservation Services, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, July 2023)”
The appellant has not provided substantial or relevant evidence to support this contention.
Regarding the contention that the project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation and will have adverse impacts on a historic resource:
The project applicant has provided a Phase II Historic Assessment (attached) which concluded:
“Insofar as the effects of the proposed project on the historic resource, we believe the potential impact to be nominal as regards the Main House” and “Given the stated objective of the designers to 1) seek compatibility with all existing cladding and the fenestration of the original building in any additions and or modifications, and 2) to enhance the utility, energy efficiency, and compatibility of extant features, we believe that the value-added additions and upgrades will go far to preserving the original character, feeling, and historicity of the Main House.” (R.G.
Mendoza Ph.D., RPA, August 2022, p. 19)
PGCC 1-17-24
Mendoza Ph.D., RPA, August 2022, p. 19)
The appellant has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate adverse impacts to a historic resource.
In summary, no substantive evidence or demonstration of inconsistency to the LCP (LUP & IP) has been provided to support the assertions made against the Planning Commission’s December 14, 2023, determination to approve CDP- 22-0264.
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The Local Coastal Program (Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan) is the legally binding standard of review for evaluating Coastal Development Permit applications for development within most of the Pacific Grove Coastal Zone. The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), certified on March 11, 2020, is the relevant portion of the General Plan providing a framework for future growth and development within the City's Coastal Zone. The Implementation Plan (PGMC Chapter 23.90) contains the ordinance and regulations which implement the provisions of the certified LCP.
The subject vicinity is designated Medium High Density du/acre 10-20 in LUP Figure 6. The subject residential neighborhood is designated Medium High Density Residential with an allowed density of 10-20 dwelling units per acre in LUP Figure 6. The proposed residential project is consistent with applicable LUP policies, including but not limited to the following:
DES-1: All new development shall be consistent with requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program, including the certified Land Use Designations figure (Figure 6).
LUD-6: Allowed uses for Coastal Zone areas designated MHD 10-20.
CRS-5: The Pacific Grove Retreat’s unique characteristic and architectural heritage contribute to the aesthetic, social, and economic well-being of the community, both for residents and visitors.
The City will encourage the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the unique historical, architectural, siting and visual characteristics of the Pacific Grove Retreat. Prior to any City review or regulatory action, all structures within the Retreat area constructed 50 years ago or more shall be evaluated for local historic significance. Historic resources in the Retreat area may seek relief from standards pursuant to DES-6.
CRS-6: All proposed development actions, including City public works projects, shall be consistent with maintaining the current scale and character of the Pacific Grove Retreat.
CRS-7: Rehabilitation, reconstruction, remodeling, or exterior modification of existing structures with historic or architectural significance in the Pacific Grove Retreat, and other neighborhoods in the Coastal Zone, shall relate to or retain the lines of the original design as much as possible and alterations shall provide evidence of substantial compliance tothe Secretary of the Interior standards for historic resources.
CRS-8: Design review shall be required as part of the Coastal Development process in order to maintain historical continuity and visual harmony of new development within the Pacific Grove Retreat and other neighborhoods in the Coastal Zone.
SCE-5: The City will designate scenic areas of the Coastal Zone, including those areas described in Policy SCE-3, as areas having special scenic significance requiring the imposition of project-specific development standards designed to protect these scenic areas (refer to Figure 4, Scenic Areas). Development standards for such special scenic significance areas shall include, but not belimited to, special siting and design criteria including height and story limitations, bulk and scale limitations, screening and landscaping requirements, natural materials and color requirements, minimizing lighting that spills into nighttime public views, avoiding glares from windows and reflective surfaces, requirements to prepare landscaping plans utilizing drought tolerant and native plants that protect and enhance scenic resources; minimizing land coverage, grading, and structure height; and maximizing setbacks from adjacent open space areas.
Clustering to maximize open space views may also be considered. Development within visually prominent settings, including those identified on Figure 4, and on all parcels that abut Ocean PGCC 1-17-24
prominent settings, including those identified on Figure 4, and on all parcels that abut Ocean View Boulevard and Sunset Drive, shall be sited and designed to avoid blocking or having a significant adverse impact on significant public views, including by situating buildings, access roads, and related development in a manner and configuration that maximizes public viewshed protection, and through such measures as height and story limitations, and bulk and scale limitations. Clustering development to maximize open space views may also be considered. Development within visually prominent settings, including those identified on Figure 4, and on all parcels that abut Ocean View Boulevard and Sunset Drive, shall be sited and designed to avoid blocking or having a significant adverse impact on significant public views, including by situating buildings, access roads, and related development in a manner and configuration that maximizes public viewshed protection, and through such measures as height and story limitations, and bulk and scale limitations. Clustering development to maximize open space views may also be considered.
Applicable General Plan Policies
The neighborhood is designated High Density Residential with an allowed density of 19.8 dwelling units per acre. The Pacific Grove General Plan provides a framework for future growth and development within the City. The Land Use Element includes goals and polices that call for the orderly, well-planned, and balanced development, consistent with the historic nature of Pacific Grove, the capacity of the City’s infrastructure, and ability to assimilate new growth. This proposed residential project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies, including the following:
Chapter 2, Land Use
Policy 2: Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development.
Policy 4: Continue to preserve Pacific Grove’s character and regulate development.
The policies above are implemented through the R-3-PGR zoning district which allows single- and multiple-family development in areas with adequate public services.
Applicable Zoning Code Regulations
As proposed, the project complies with the zoning regulations and development standards set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapters 23.90 (Coastal Implementation Plan or IP) and 23.26 (R-3-PGR). This includes, but is not limited to, height, setbacks, building and site coverages, and gross floor area. The proposed project complies with PGMC section 23.90.180(2)(C) Off-Street Parking by providing two off-street parking spaces where one was previously provided. The applicant provided a Project Data Sheet (attached) indicating the development standards of the zoning district, existing conditions, and proposed conditions.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
An application was filed with the Community Development Department (CDD) on October 6, 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). Due to the scope (i.e., major remodel including a second-story addition and new accessory unit), the proposed project is not eligible for the standard residential CDP exemption per PGMC section 23.90.040(a) and CDD staff forwarded a CDP Determination to the California Coastal Commission on August 23, 2023.
Architecture and Design Consideration
The proposed project would allow the construction of a 2,096 square foot two-story single-family dwelling (1,911 square feet of living space with a 185 square foot attached garage). As proposed, the project would be compatible with the neighborhood which is comprised of small-, medium-, and large-sized, one- and two-story residences of varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales. The proposed structure would use exterior colors and materials to match the existing structure that would blend with the surrounding natural street scape. As designed, the facade avoids large blank areas facing PGCC 1-17-24
the street and the project would not result in adverse visual impacts. The architectural style, materials and site design are in conformance with the LCP’s Residential Design Standards in PGMC
23.90.180.C.2.
Architectural Review Guidelines
Appendix 1: Working with Buildings on the HRI
Neighborhood Context. The proposed remodel and addition would preserve those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, cultural, and architectural use.
Effects of additions of historic scale and character. The proposed addition would be located on the rear of the existing residence with limited visibility from 11th Street, however, would introduce an increase to the mass and appearance of the existing residence from Pearl Street.
Preservation of character-defining features. Existing character-defining features would be retained and/or rehabilitated.
Compatibility of new work with old. The proposed remodel and addition are compatible in form, scale, and materials, and do not compromise the architectural integrity of the original structure.
Replacements. As proposed, the exterior alterations are of similar design and materials as the original.
De facto demolitions. This project would not result in a de facto demolition.
The architectural style, materials and site design are in substantial conformance with the City’s Architectural Review Guidelines. Specifically, Guideline No. 28 relating to an addition complementing and balancing the overall form, mass and composition of the existing building, Guideline No. 35 relating to the façade appearing similar in scale and character to those in its context, and Guideline No. 38 relating to compatibility of exterior materials used in analyzing compliance of the proposed project.
The proposed addition would be located on the rear of the existing residence with limited visibility from 10th Street, however, would introduce an increase to the mass and appearance of the existing residence from Pearl Street and 9 th Street. The proposed exterior colors and materials would match the existing structure and complement the residences in the neighborhood.
Per the historical assessment prepared for the project, the subject property consists of character defining features for a Shingle Style house form the late nineteenth to early 20th Century. The Shingle Style character defining features of the Hermle & Collins house consist of wood shingle roof cladding, a “bulged eyebrow” above the main entrance, flared eaves, a steeply pitched roofline, dormer on the rear of the residence, and a side-gabled roof.
Lighting
Exterior lighting shall comply with LUP Policy DES-6 and is required as a condition of approval.
Archaeological Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.200.B.1, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase 1 Archaeological Study (Archives & Archaeology; March 28, 2022) prepared for the project site by a qualified archaeologist. The study concluded that the subject property contains no indication of pre-contact cultural sites, features, or artifacts. The project is conditioned to address inadvertent discovery of human remains or cultural artifacts.
Historic Resources
Per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 23.90.200.B.2, Cultural Resources, a Phase II Historical Assessment (Archives and Achaeology, August 14, 2022) prepared for the property by a qualified historian concluded the proposed development would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
PGCC 1-17-24
Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
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, plan set, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2023, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The project site is over 300 feet from the nearest shoreline at an elevation of 90 ft above sea level. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.
Stormwater
Per PGMC section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed new development is under 2,500 square feet of new site coverage, and would fall within the City’s Municipal Permit.
Scenic Resources
Per PGMC § 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2023. This review determined the site and proposed development are not within a designated scenic view area or corridor and would not adversely impact public views.
Biological Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted a site inspection on August 15, 2023. This review determined the proposed development would not have the potential to affect biological resources or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), and that the site is not within 100 feet of ESHA. LUP Figure 5 identifies the site as having a low habitat value, and the property is a previously developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures, 10th Street, and Pearl Street.
Additionally, the project site is over 350 feet from the nearest marine habitat. The property is further separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, 2 city streets, and numerous residential structures. As designed and conditioned, the project would not impact natural habitats or resources; therefore, in this case, submittal of an initial site assessment for biological resources is not required or warranted.
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). The proposed project is found to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, and Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and the neighborhood within which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. The exceptions to exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources do not apply to this project. Specifically, in this case, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
OPTIONS
PGCC 1-17-24
Deny the appeal, affirm the December 14, 2023, determination of the Planning Commission, and approve Coastal Development Permit 22-0264 based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation)
1. Deny the appeal, modify the conditions of approval to affirm in part the December 14, 2023, determination of the Planning Commission, and approve Coastal Development Permit 22-0264 based on findings, amended conditions of approval, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities and Section 15331 - Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation)
2. If findings per PGMC 23.90.080 - Required findings for CDP approval cannot be made, grant the appeal and disapprove of Coastal Development Permit 22-0264, approved by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2023.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
CDP 22-0264 Appeal Application (Ciani)
CDP 22-0264 Appeal Application (Ellis/Rudolph)
CDP 22-0264 Appeal Application Supplemental (Ellis)
CDP Application 22-0264
CDD Application 22-0624
Project Data Sheet
Draft CC Resolution Appeal CDP 22-0264
CDP & UP 22-0264 Permit-PC signed
111 10th St Plan Set
111 10th St Additional Elevations
Phase 2 Historic Assessment
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION & SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Instructions
Please submit a complete application packet including this form with all of the items checked below. If one or more of the items is not applicable to your project, please mark ZiWh ³QRW aSSOicabOe´ RU ³Q/a´. AOO e[hibiWV PXVW be cOeaU, OegibOe, aQd WR VcaOe ZheUe appropriate.
Incomplete applications will not be accepted for filing.
Checklist
This checklist is provided for the convenience of applicants in gathering necessary application materials. Additional material may be required prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). For example, preliminary title reports, land surveys, biological/archaeological/botanical reports, restoration plans, and other reports or plans may be required based on the scope of the project.
A completed standard City of Pacific Grove Community Development Planning Permit Application including the Indemnification Form signed by the applicant and property owner
The Plan Set shall include: a Site Plan meeting the requirements of the Submittal Checklist Form; Architectural Elevations of all sides of the structure and including accessory buildings; (1) oblique street-view architectural rendering if the site is flat or a minimum of (2) views if the site is located in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area (ADRA), including at least (1) view from Sunset Dr.; and a completed Project Data Sheet. Note that the installation of story poles and netting will be required during the public notice period.
One (1) full-Vi]e (24´ [ 36´) VcaOed SOaQ VeW, WZR (2) 11´ [ 17´ scaled sets, and a digital set of plans (thumb drive, disc, or email). Please include digital versions of ALL of the application materials as part of your Electronic Submittal. Include a Vicinity Map on the site plan. Additional copies may be needed for hearings. Required Technical Reports (biological/archaeological/botanical reports, geotechnical reports, grading plan, etc.)
Filing Fee
Project Description: (Describe the project in detail including secondary improvements such as grading, removal or alteration of septic tanks, roads, driveways, tree removal and/or pruning, accessory buildings, fences, etc. Attach additional pages as necessary) _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 2 of 5 March 2020
Project Location: ___________________ Assessor Parcel No: _________________ (street address)
Present Use of the property:
Are there existing buildings? Yes No If yes, please describe: ___________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Will any existing buildings be removed or demolished? Yes No If yes, please describe:
________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Is the proposed development governed by a Development Agreement? Yes No Has any application for development on this site been made in the past to the CA Coastal Commission or the CA Coastal Zone Conservation Commission? Yes No If yes, please list application #s: ____________________________________________ Coastal Access: Is the proposed development within the first public road and the sea or Monterey Bay? Yes No If yes, is there currently public access to the shoreline on or near the site? Please describe:
______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Waters: Does the project involve diking, filling, draining, dredging or placing structures in open coastal or Monterey Bay waters, wetlands, or estuaries? Yes No If yes, state the amount of fill in cubic yards (cy) _________. What is the location of the fill receiving site? _____________________________________________________ Is an Army Corps (USACE) permit required? Yes No
Will the project effect Public Access to and along the shoreline, either directly or indirectly (i.e., removing parking used for access to the beach)? Yes No If yes, describe the impact: _______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Please check the following Utilities that will need to be extended to the proposed development:
Water Sewer Electrical Natural Gas Telephone
Is the proposed development in or near the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area (ADRA)? Yes No If yes, additional technical reports will be required.
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 3 of 5 March 2020
Is the development within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) including areas with state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species, or candidate species?
Yes No If yes, additional technical reports will be required. If the development is proposed to: a) alter a spring or stream in any way; or b) effect an existing well (either onsite or offsite), contact the Planning Department for additional requirements.
Will the proposed development be visible from Sunset Drive or other mapped scenic resource areas? Yes No
Include any Tree Removal or Pruning required (a separate permit may be required).
Note the number, size, species of tree (s), and whether heavy equipment will be QeceVVaU\ fRU WUee SURjecW (UefeU WR Whe TUee PeUPiW UeTXiUePeQWV RQ CiW\¶V Public Works website)
Is the development in or near a park or other recreation area? Yes No Is this a City Public Works project or a project being undertaken by another public agency? Yes No If yes, please contact the Planning Division for additional requirements relating to grading, dredging, fill, use of heavy equipment, additional non-City permit requirements, etc.
Will the development extend onto or adjoin any beach, tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands? Yes No If yes, please consult with Planning staff for additional requirements.
If the site contains any of the following resources, attach an explanation:
BXiOdiQgV RQ Whe CiW\¶V HiVWRUic ReVRXUceV IQYeQWRU\ (HRI) RU PRUe WhaQ 50 \eaUV old;
Archaeological resources; and/or
Paleontological resources
Does the project include the development of new Lodging or the alteration of existing Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations and/or Recreation Facilities? Yes No If yes, describe how the project complies with the requirements of PGMC Sec.
23.90.220 _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
Will the development provide public or private recreational opportunities? Yes No
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 4 of 5 March 2020
Is any Grading proposed? Yes No If yes, complete the following table:
a) Amount of cut: ___ cubic yards (cy)
b) Amount of fill: ___ cy
c) Amount of import or export: ___ cy
(circle which one)
d) Max. height of cut slope: ___ ft.
e) Max. Height of fill slope: ___ ft.
f) Location of borrow or disposal: ___ ft.
Note: grading, stormwater, and erosion control plans must be attached when applicable If the project is multi-family residential, indicate:
Number of Units Total # of bedrooms per
unit (existing and
proposed)
Type of ownership
proposed
Existing # of
Units
Proposed # of
Units
Net # of units
upon
completion
Rental
Condo
Stock Coop
Timeshare
Other
Estimated cost of the proposed development (not including the cost of land) $_________ Parking and Utilities
Number of parking spaces required
Existing spaces Proposed new spaces Net # of spaces on completion of project
Project Height: (Max. height of structure as defined in the IP: the vertical distance measured between the legally established existing grade and the top-most portion of development above existing grade, unless otherwise specified)
a. Above existing (natural) grade ___________ ft.
b. Above finished grade ____________ ft.
c. As measured from centerline of frontage road __________ ft. Total # of floors in structure, including subterranean floors, lofts, and mezzanines _____ Gross Floor Area (GFA) in sq. ft. (includes garages and accessory buildings) __________ sq. ft. Lot Area _________ sq. ft.
PGCC 1-17-24
Pacific Grove – Coastal Development Permit Application & Submittal Checklist Page 5 of 5 March 2020
If the project includes Subdivision or a Lot Line Adjustment, indicate:
Number of Lots Size of lots to be created (indicate
gross and net lots size)
Existing # of Lots Proposed # of Lots Net # of lots upon completion
Existing Proposed
If the project is a Lot Line Adjustment or a request for Certificates of Subdivision Compliance, please provide the following:
1. ³CUeaWiRQ dRcXPeQWV´ fRU aOO affecWed SURSeUWieV. TheVe dRcXPeQWV ZRXOd include grant deeds or certain maps recorded prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act (Jan. 1, 1976) that include a legal description describing the property as it exists today;
2. A prelim. title report less than six (6) months old; and
3. Current grant deeds for each affected property.
PGCC 1-17-24
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department – Planning Division
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Tel: 831.648.3190 • Fax: 831.648.3184 • www.cityofpacificgrove.org Permit Application
Project Address: APN:
Project Description:
Will the project create, add, or replace impervious surface? Yes No Will the project impact any tree(s) on site? Yes No
Applicant Owner
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Mailing Address:
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Mailing Address:
Permit Request:
CRD: Counter Determination SP: Sign Permit IHS: Initial Historic Screening VAR: Variance AP: Architectural Permit UP: Use Permit HPP: Historic Preservation MMP: Mitigation Monitoring AAP: Administrative AP AUP: Administrative UP A: Appeal Water Entitlement ADC: Arch Design Change CDP: Coastal Dev. Permit TPD: Tree Permit W/ Dev’t Other:
ASP: Admin Sign Permit LLA: Lot Line Adjustment CDP Waiver/Admin. CDP Other:
CEQA Determination: Review Authority: Active Permits: Overlay Zones:
Exempt
Initial Study & Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Staff
ZA
SPRC
HRC
PC
CC
Active Planning Permit
Active Building Permit
Active Code Violation
Butterfly Zone
Area of Special Biological
Significance (ASBS)
Environmental Impact
Report
ARB Permit #:
Property Information
Lot:
ZC:
Block:
GP:
Tract:
Lot Size:
Historic Resources Inventory Archaeologically Sensitive Area CDP Appeal Jurisdiction Staff Use Only:
Received by:
Assigned to:
AP
PLIC
A
NT/
O
W
NER: PL
A
N
NING
S
TAFF U
SE
O
NLY:
Application #
Date:
Total Fees:
REMODEL AN EXISTING TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. MODIFY EXISTING DETACHED ADU
AND CONNECTING PORTION OF ADU TO MAIN STRUCTURE AND EXTENDING SECOND STORY ABOVE THE CONVERTED ADU UNIT. PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS CONVERTING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING ADU INTO A GARAGE. ADD NEW WOOD-CLAD WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING. NO EXCAVATION OR TREE REMOVAL.
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94127
[email protected]
155 SAN RAFAEL WAY
(415) 987-5640
LYNNE HERMLE & CRAIG COLLINS
CARMEL CA 93923
26615 CARMEL CENTER PLACE #102
[email protected]
831-626-4146
CLAUDIO ORTIZ DESIGN GROUP INC.
111 10th Street Pacific Grove CA 93950 006-218-001-000
PGCC 1-17-24
Application #
INDEMNIFICATION CONDITION
In consideration for City review and approval of application in this matter, the Owner/Applicant shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees (collectively “Indemnitees”), using counsel approved in writing by the City, from and against, any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements which may accrue against Indemnitees by reason of the City’s processing, approval or denial of the request and application in this matter. Indemnification shall include, but shall not be limited to any action, or proceeding brought to attack, set aside, void, annul, limit, or inhibit the approval of the application referenced above, and shall expressly include causes of action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the CA Coastal Act.
The obligation to indemnify shall include, but not be limited to, all costs relating to preparing administrative records, investigations, responses to discovery, retention of experts, and other costs, including attorney’s fees or obligations related to this matter, including actions brought by the Owner/Applicant and extend to any expense incurred in establishing the City’s right to indemnification. City expenses shall be paid by Owner/Applicant upon City request notwithstanding final disposition of the matter has not yet occurred. If the City is later determined to not be entitled to indemnification, the City shall repay amounts so advanced.
This indemnification condition is the Owner/Applicant’s inducement to the City to process and approve the application, which approval would otherwise be withheld by City due to its concern for liability or expense that may result from performance of the City’s duties. Should any dispute arise regarding interpretation of this condition, the prevailing party shall recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees and related expenses. Recovery of expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.
This indemnification condition shall not require the Owner/Applicant to indemnify the City or other Indemnities: (a) to the extent that an obligation is actually paid by an insurer pursuant to an insurance policy; (b) in connection with any remuneration paid to the City, if it shall be finally adjudged that such remuneration was in violation of law; or (c) on account of the City’s misconduct if such misconduct shall be finally adjudged to have been knowingly fraudulent, deliberately dishonest or willful.
Any permit or other approval given by the City to the Owner/Applicant Guarantor shall be valid only so long as this indemnification condition is given full force and effect. If this indemnification condition is revoked, the permit or other approval of the City shall then become null and void.
Owner/Applicant represents it (and any subsidiary) is (a) duly formed and organized, (b) validly existing and in good standing under state law, and (c) has all necessary power to execute and deliver this document and perform its obligations. Owner/Applicant also represents it is authorized to enter into this agreement by all requisite partnership, corporate or other action, and its terms are a valid and legally binding obligation. Neither execution nor delivery of this document nor performance of its obligations will violate any law or provision of any agreement, articles of incorporation, by-laws or other organizational or governing documents relating to Owner/Applicant, nor conflict with any court order relating to Owner/Applicant.
Applicant Signature: Date:
Owner Signature (Required): Date:
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: D5C25510ABC8441187F08109C25F050A Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Planning application copy.pdf, SKM_C55822040516140.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Franshisca Delgado
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
26615 Carmel Center Place
#102
Carmel, CA 93923
[email protected]
IP Address: 73.170.111.81
Record Tracking
Status: Original
4/6/2022 8:08:21 AM
Holder: Franshisca Delgado
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Craig Collins
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Signed by link sent to [email protected]
Using IP Address: 24.6.11.107
Sent: 4/6/2022 9:00:00 AM
Viewed: 4/6/2022 12:10:32 PM
Signed: 4/6/2022 12:11:17 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Lynne Hermle
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Signed by link sent to [email protected]
Using IP Address: 24.6.11.107
Sent: 4/6/2022 9:00:00 AM
Viewed: 4/6/2022 9:32:13 AM
Signed: 4/6/2022 9:32:38 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Claudio Ortiz
[email protected]
Principal
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 4/6/2022 9:00:00 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
PGCC 1-17-24
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/6/2022 9:00:01 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/6/2022 9:32:13 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/6/2022 9:32:38 AM
Completed Security Checked 4/6/2022 12:11:17 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
PGCC 1-17-24
[Rev. 01/14/14]
PROJECT DATA SHEET
Project Address: Submittal Date:
Applicant(s): Permit Type(s) & No(s):
REQUIRED/
Permitted
Existing
Condition
Proposed
Condition Notes
Zone District
Building Site Area
Density (multi-family projects only)
Building Coverage
Site Coverage
Gross Floor Area
Square Footage not counted towards
Gross Floor Area
Impervious Surface Area Created
and/or Replaced
Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be
demolished in feet & % of total* _______ _______ ___ft/___% Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be built _______ _______ Building Height
Number of stories
Front Setback
_______________Side Setback
(specify side)
_______________Side Setback
(specify side)
Rear Setback
Garage Door Setback
Covered Parking Spaces
Uncovered Parking Spaces
Parking Space Size
(Interior measurement)
9¶ [ 20¶
Number of Driveways 1
Driveway Width(s)
Back-up Distance
Eave Projection (Into Setback) 3¶ ma[imXm
Distances Between Eaves & Property
Lines
3¶ miQimXm
Open Porch/Deck Projections
Architectural Feature Projections
Number & Category of Accessory
Buildings
Accessory Building Setbacks
Distance between Buildings
Accessory Building Heights
Fence Heights
*If project proposes demolition to an HRI structure, also indicate % of proposed demolition of the surface of all exterior walls facing a public street or streets, if applicable. 11110thStreet PG
ClaudioOrtizDesignGroup Inc
2120123
AP220264
R 3 PGR R 3PGR R3PGR Nochange
Lotsize sq ft 3,000sqft 3ooosatt 3,000saft Nochange
0 0 0
1800.00 1,117.00 1,506.00 sq ft D
2,160.00 7661.117 1.883.00620 150652.1260059 ftITÉIYYIYIML previous changelcorrecttodeckonpl 2,400.00 1,556.00 2,151.00
P x 0 0
766.00 620.00 sq ft
11511 3s
11511111 35.98Walls 32312 Removed
pop 46.0.2 182161146.82Reconstructed
30ft 21 7 22 8
2stories 2stories Nochange
8ft 6 6 6 6 Nochange woodbeck.net issetback Streeterner 20 0760 allowed 2 1 j
West 1001 0760 setbacktoremainexisting
alert s t at
i at j story set modificationofsome the 2stone oft I 911ft story's astone est waysfornewdoorswindows
20minsetback 0 40 3
o
I I uncoveredparkingspacein Driveway
1044173
I I ldriveway
140 ofwitth607 241 11 to 10
20 40 3 stretto Garage
propertyune
rearaileron
propertyline toremaininsetbacksome ommmatamIIIIatural EEo No propertyline as
m
Is itiitEaetiiearoegg misreggineack i i i
P 0 0 0
I 1 y
APUconvertedback nochange
to main dwelling instructure
space setbacks
3 1 a O see note above
10 3 0 I I 16 1013 0 see note above
61 6 Nochange
1,440.00
2,096.00
544+1,117=1,657.00 620+1,440=2,060.00
Revised 8/16/23
Site Coverage + building coverage
PGCC 1-17-24
Existing 9Proposed Notes
Distance Rear O 9 FROMPL
Between south y ppl from pl
to remain in setback some
Topertxanes worth issonpromp
aves 9 Éb_AMaIMIÉIa
support a new windows doors
Existing9new eave toprojectinto setback
we
1 PGCC 1-17-24
RESOLUTION NO. 24-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DENYING THE APPEAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) 22-0264 AND APPROVING CDP 22-0264 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 10th STREET TO ALLOW THE MAJOR REMODEL OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING TO INCLUDE A 304 SQUARE FOOT FIRST FLOOR
ADDITION CONNECTING THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE, A NEW 276 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR REAR ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, A NEW 402 SQUARE FOOT DRIVEWAY, AND NEW 324 SQUARE FOOT WOODEN DECK.. THIS PROPERTY IS LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY.
FACTS
1. The subject site is located at 111 10th Avenue, Pacific Grove, APN 006-218-001.
2. The subject site has a designation of Medium High Density Residential (10-20 du/ac) in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).
3. The project site is located in the R-3-PGR zoning district.
4. The subject property is approximately 3,600 square feet in size.
5. The property is located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), within an archaeologically sensitive area (LUP Figure 7), within the Coastal Zone, and listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
6. 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, plan set, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2023, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.
7. Per PGMC § 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed new development is under 2,500 square feet of new coverage, and will fall within the City’s Municipal Permit. As proposed, the project would include approximately 880 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area.
8. Per PGMC § 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2023. This review determined the site and proposed development are not within a designated scenic view area or corridor and would not adversely impact public views.
9. Per PGMC § 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted a site inspection on August 15, 2023. This review determined the proposed development would not have the potential to affect biological resources or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), and that the site is not within 100 feet of ESHA. LUP Figure 5 identifies the site as having a low habitat value, and the property is a previously developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures, 10th Street, and Pearl Street. The property is further separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, two city streets, and residential structures. As designed and conditioned, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources; therefore, in this case, submittal of an initial site assessment for biological resources is not required or warranted.
PGCC 1-17-24
10. Per PGMC § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase 1 Archaeological Study (Archives & Archaeology; March 28, 2022) prepared for the project site by a qualified archaeologist. The study concluded that the subject property contains no indication of precontact cultural sites, features, or artifacts. The project is conditioned to address inadvertent discovery of human remains or cultural artifacts.
11. Per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, a Phase II Historical Assessment (Archives and Achaeology, August 14, 2022) prepared for the property by a qualified historian concluded the proposed development would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
12. The subject site is currently developed with a 1117 square foot one-story single-family dwelling and a 398 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit.
13. The proposed development would include the following: a) a new 304 square foot first floor addition connecting the existing accessory structure to the main residence b) a new 276 square foot second floor addition c) new 324 square foot composite deck and d) 403 square foot driveway (223 sq ft exempt).
14. This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, and Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, and the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.
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) The project 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.
Per LUP Figure 4, Scenic Areas, the project site is not located within a designated Scenic View Area. As designed, the project would not impact public views and would be consistent with the height and massing of residences in the immediate vicinity of the project area.
3. Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats, and natural resources consistent with the LCP.
Per LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, the project site is identified as having a low habitat value, and the property is a previously developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures, 10th Street, and Pearl Street. The project site is further separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, two city streets, and numerous residential structures. As designed and conditioned, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources and is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC § 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
PGCC 1-17-24
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 project conforms to all applicable LUP polices and IP community design standards (PGMC 23.90.180, Coastal Community Design).
5. Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast.
As designed, the project will have no effect on coastal access to or along the coast.
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.
The project includes residential development and will have no visitor-serving features yet may qualify for a Short-Term Rental (STR) license given its location within the coastal zone. As of this date, there is no indication that the applicant intends to pursue an STR license.
7. Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.
Per LUP Figure 6, the subject property has a Coastal Zone Land Use Designation of Medium High Density Residential 10-20 du/ac (MHD 10-20). LUP Policy LUD-6 identifies main and accessory dwelling units as allowed uses in areas designated MHD 10-
20. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent.
8. Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.
The 3,600 square foot project site is currently developed with a 1,117 square foot one-story single-family dwelling and a 398 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit. As proposed and designed, the project will not impact coastal resources. See also Facts 6 – 11 and supporting information.
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 if a building permit has not been appliedfor within one (1) year from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.
2. Construction Compliance. All construction must 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 Historic Resources Committee approval.
3. 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.
4. Public Works, Fire and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments, and Building Division, are required prior to issuance of a building permit.
PGCC 1-17-24
Work taking place in the public right-of- way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.
5. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans for 111 10th Street dated July 17, 2023 (revised on September 12, 2023), on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.
6. Lighting. All exterior lighting must conform to LUP Policy DES-6.
7. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.
8. Stormwater Treatment Measure. The stormwater treatment measures shall be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity and City of Pacific Grove staff shall be allowed access to inspect all stormwater treatment measures on an annual basis.
9. Archaeology and Inadvertent Discovery. When human remains or 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.
10. 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.
11. Tribal/Archaeological Monitoring. A qualified tribal monitor and archaeological monitor shall be present to observe all ground disturbing activities of the project and to investigate and report on any findings.
12. Tree Protection. Development shall follow all provisions and standards outlined in the City of Pacific Grove Information Bulletin No. 29: Tree Guidelines During Development.
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 denies the appeal and affirms the determination of the Planning Commission to approve CDP 22-0264.
PGCC 1-17-24
3. The Council finds the project categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The Council also finds that the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.
4. The required Findings and Conditions of Approval are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.
5. The Council APPROVES this permit (Application No. 22-0264) to allow the major remodel of an existing two-story single-family dwelling to include a 304 square foot first floor addition connecting the existing accessory structure to the main structure, a new 276 square foot second floor rear addition to the rear of the existing structure, a new 402 square foot driveway, and new 324 square foot wooden deck.
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 17th day of January, 2024, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
A1.0
C O D G
10 Th
111
Hermle Collins Residence
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A1.1
10th ST
PEARL AVE.
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A1.2
482'
483'
481'
482'
483'
483'
484'
483'
483'
483'
481'
482'
482'
483'
481' 481'
482'
482'
481'
482'
482'
NG
480.2'
NG
480.8'
NG
481.1'
NG
481.5'
NG
481.5'
NG
481.2'
NG
481.5'
NG
481.7'
NG
481.8'
NG
481.8'
NG
482.0'
NG
481.7'
NG
482.2'
NG
482.1'
NG
482.8'
NG
482.9'
NG
482.5'
FS-CONC
483.56'
FS-CONC
483.62'
FS-CONC
483.60'
NG
483.0'
NG
482.9'
NG
482.9'
NG
482.9'
FS-CONC
483.10'
NG
482.2'
NG
482.9'
NG
482.1'
NG
481.3'
NG
481.3'
NG
481.2'
NG
481.6'
NG
482.4'
NG
481.8'
NG
481.6'
FS-LNDG
483.50'
NG
481.6'
NG
481.8'
NG
481.1'
NG
481.4'
NG
481.5'
NG
482.1'
NG
482.8'
NG
481.3'
NG
481.2'
10th ST
PEARL AVE.
PGCC 1-17-24
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A2.0
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A2.1
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A3.0
111
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A3.1
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A4.0
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A4.1
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A4.2
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A4.3
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A5.0
A
7.0 A
7.0 PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A6.0
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A6.1
111
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G
A7.0
PGCC 1-17-24
A8.0
C.O.D.G.
PGCC 1-17-24
C O D G A6.0
PGCC 1-17-24
Archives & Archaeology
Rubén G. Mendoza PhD., RPA, Project Archaeologist / Historian 1645 Beacon Hill Drive
Salinas, California 93906
Phase Two Historic Assessment of 111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 APN: 006-218-001-000
Submitted By
Archives & Archaeology
Rubén G. Mendoza Ph.D., RPA, Project Archaeologist
Jennifer A. Lucido, Associate
1645 Beacon Hill Drive
Salinas, CA 93906
Prepared for:
Lynne Hermle and Craig Collins c/o Claudio Ortiz, CODG, Inc., Design+Build 155 San Rafael Way
San Francisco, CA 94127
Tel. (831) 626-4146
City of Pacific Grove, Planning Division
300 Forest Ave. 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
August 14, 2022
Construction: 1926
Property Type: HP2. Single-family property
Other Resources: HP4. Ancillary House (former Carriage House) Map: 36.621456877143, -121.911485607181
APN: 006-218-001-000
Address: 111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
PGCC 1-17-24
1 Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Professional Qualifications 2
Description of the Proposed Project 3
Research Procedures 5
Historical Background 5
Native American & Mission Periods (to 1820) 5
Mexican & Early American Periods (1821 - 1872) 7
Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 - 1926) 8
City of Homes (1927 - 1945) 8
Suburban Expansion (1946 - 1965) 9
Background for the Hermle & Collins House (1926 to present) 9 Description of the Historic Resource 11
Existing Elevations 11
Character-Defining Features 13
Evaluation for Significance 13
National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation 14 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria for Evaluation 14 Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (Pacific Grove Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 23.76): Section 23.76.025 Evaluation criteria 15 Aspects of Integrity 17
Impacts of the Proposed Project 18
Mitigation 19
Final Assessment 19
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX II: FIGURES 25
APPENDIX III: ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 37
APPENDIX IV: PROPOSED PROJECT / ELEVATIONS / PLANS 42
APPENDIX V: PRIMARY SOURCES & HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS 47
APPENDIX VI: DPR 523 FORMS 52
PGCC 1-17-24
2 Introduction
This document constitutes that reporting requested by the City of Pacific Grove, and required of the property owners, Lynne Hermle and Craig Collins c/o Claudio Ortiz, CODG, Inc., Design+Build, for compliance with the required Phase Two Historic Assessment of the Shingle Style single-family residence located at 111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950. Listed as Assessor’s Parcel Number 006-218-001-000, this report is mandated under Pacific Grove’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 23.76).
The Hermle & Collins house is located in the city of Pacific Grove, California. From Salinas, access to the property lies approximately 9 miles from California State Route 1 South (Highway 1 or CA-1 S). From CA-1 S, continue 5 miles and then take 402B to merge onto Del Monte Ave toward Pacific Grove (1.9 miles). Keep right to continue on Lighthouse Ave (1.4 miles). Continue onto Central Ave (0.5 miles) and then turn right onto 10th St. The Hermle & Collins home is located on the right side of the street (Google Maps 2022).
Given that the property under consideration is located within the City of Pacific Grove, within the purview of the California Coastal Commission, and construed as lying within one of the most archaeologically and historically sensitive resource zones in the State of California, this report is required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the region is considered both historically and archaeologically sensitive and is likely to produce archaeological and historical resources. It was determined that because the building dates to 1926, and falls beyond the minimum 50-year age for those buildings or structures that trigger such historical studies and assessments, this study was undertaken as per compliance protocols.
The following review of findings establishes that (a) both the location of the parcel within a historically sensitive zone and the building’s construction in 1926 justify the City of Pacific Grove Planning Division’s request for preparing this Phase Two Historic Assessment, (b) by contrast with the earlier Phase One Historical Assessment, it has since been determined that the Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance or the California Register of Historical Resources. Even so, the residence is presently listed in the Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (HRI, Permit #141) (Municipal Code Chapter 23.76, Section 23.76.025).
Professional Qualifications
Archives & Archaeology Principal Investigator Rubén G. Mendoza Ph.D., RPA, is a University of Arizona trained Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management specialist who completed the MA degree in Anthropology at the University of Arizona in 1980, and the Ph.D. at the same institution in 1992. His BA degree in Anthropology and History was completed in 1978 at the California State University, Bakersfield. His long-established interest in archaeologically and ethnohistorically-mediated architectural histories remains a defining characteristic of his scholarship and career and has resulted in scores of publications and reports, including peerreviewed journal articles and book chapters spanning Precolumbian, Spanish Colonial, Iberian, and Mediterranean / Mission Revival, and other contemporary California architectural styles and traditions.
Under City of Salinas business licenses identified with both Archaeological and Historical Resource Consulting and Archives & Archaeology, Dr. Mendoza has undertaken archaeological PGCC 1-17-24
3 and historical resources consulting on the Central Coast, specifically Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and San Luis Obispo counties, since the year 2000. His work with California contractors, engineers, conservators, and other historic preservationists spans the period from 1995 to the present. Besides a host of residential and business clients, our client list includes Architectural Conservation LLC; ARG–Architectural Resources Group; Lino Belli, AIA, Belli Architectural Group; Brett Brenkwitz and Charles Franks, Franks, Brenkwitz & Associates; Gretchen Flesher, GFA–Gretchen Flesher Architecture; John Swift, Hamilton Swift & Associates - Integrated Land Use and Development Services; Page & Turnbull; Pacific Grove Public Library; The Roman Catholic Diocese of Monterey (Old Mission San Juan Bautista HSR, San Carlos Borromeo, The Royal Presidio Chapel Conservation Project, San Miguel Arcángel HSR, Maryknoll Rectory, San Juan Bautista HSR, Mission Nuestra Senora de la Soledad); United States National Park Service; San Antonio Missions National Historical Park / UNESCO World Heritage List Consultant. He has been recognized for exemplary contributions to the historic preservation of early California architecture with the granting of the California Preservation Foundation Award (2008), the California Mission Directors and Curators Conference Father Fermín Francisco de Lasuén Award (2013), and the California Missions Foundation/California Mission Studies Association Norman Neuerburg Award (2016). In addition, Dr. Mendoza is the author of a host of architectural histories and international press publications, including Rizzoli’s The California Missions (2018), The Spanish Style House - From Enchanted Andalusia to the California Dream (2021), and the forthcoming Casa Santa Fe - Design, Style, Arts, and Tradition (2023).
Archives & Archaeology Research Associate / Cultural Resources Manager Jennifer A. Lucido completed her MA degree in Cultural Resources Management at Sonoma State University in 2015. She completed the BA degree in Social & Behavioral Sciences with a concentration in Archaeology at California State University, Monterey Bay, where she is presently an Adjunct Faculty member. Ms. Lucido has published widely on early California and Spanish colonial architecture. Her scholarly contributions to “furthering the preservation and protection of the California Missions” were acknowledged by the California Mission Curators and Directors Conference with the granting of the Father Fermín Francisco de Lasuén Award (2014). She is coPrincipal and author for a host of major academic grants and fellowships, including the 2013 National Endowment for the Humanities Landmarks of American History and Culture: Workshops for School Teachers Grant ($180,000), and the 2013 NEH Digital Enhancement Supplement Grant ($12,000). Ms. Lucido’s expertise centers on Cultural Resources Management and historic assessments and architectural resource studies. Her current body of academic research seeks to fully interpret the architectural history, ethnogenesis, and archaeological heritage of the Spanish Royal Presidio of Monterey for the period spanning 1770 to 1848.
Description of the Proposed Project
A Phase One Historic Assessment of the Hermle & Collins property was initiated on February 6, 2022 on behalf of Lynne Hermle and Craig Collins for the Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc. (CODG), and submitted to Claudio Ortiz of the CODG on March 22, 2022. After a planning review and consultation with the City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department, the City requested that a Phase Two Historic Assessment be completed. Upon the client’s approval of the PGCC 1-17-24
4 project quote for the Phase Two Historic Assessment on May 25, 2022, project research and review of existing plans and historic documents was initiated for further consideration on June 14, 2022. The Phase Two Historical Assessment was in part predicated on the on-site field survey and photographic reconnaissance for both the Phase One, and by extension, Phase Two Historic Assessments originally undertaken by Dr. Rubén G. Mendoza, Ph.D., the Project Historian and Principal for Archives & Archaeology - Archaeological & Historical Resources Consulting (http://ArchivesArchaeology.com) on January 3, 2022. Said documentation, photography, and updated plans were redeployed for those considerations bearing on the Phase Two Historical Assessment reported here. Cultural Resources Management Research Associate Jennifer A.
Lucido, MA, conducted the initial archival research at the Pacific Grove Planning Department on January 3, 2022, and ancillary and/or online City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department documentation and guidelines have supported this effort from the outset. For the Phase Two Historical Assessment, interviews were conducted with architect Claudio Ortiz for the purposes of reviewing both 1) the proposed design modifications to the main building, 2) a proposed building remodel and retrofit of the former Carriage House, 3) plan and materials review identified with the Carriage House, and 4) mitigation considerations. The review was convened with architect Claudio Ortiz of the Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc. (CODG) on July 12, 2022, and the interview was conducted by Dr. Rubén Mendoza of Archives & Archaeology.
The proposed project entails the construction of a 396.7 sq. ft. Main Level Master Bedroom addition at the north end of the former Carriage House, and a 276.0 sq. ft. Upper Level addition over the Master Bedroom addition to the former Carriage House structure. The Upper Level will be connected to the main building by way of a 3’ 10” wide Upper Level walkway to that portion of the main building identified with the 1990s era “dormer” addition. Main Level access from the Master Bedroom addition will articulate with the existing location of a sash window identified with an extant washroom (Bath 1). The retrofit in question will thereby permit the addition of both Bedroom 3 and Bath 3 within the context of the Upper Level addition, and the integration of an enclosed Upper Level walkway replete with gabled roof and period appropriate sash windows and cladding. In addition, the French Doors installed during the course of the circa 1990 remodel, and located at the southeast corner of the south elevation, will revert to a sash window ensemble within the frame of the existing door frame. Finally, the south half of the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit or former Carriage House will be converted into a garage, which is consonant with its original usage in the 1930s through 1980s (See Appendix IV, A4.1 through A7.0).
The proposed project is detailed in those plans attached in AppendixIV, A4.1 through A7.0, and according to Claudio Ortiz of the Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc. (CODG), the Main Level addition to the Carriage House is construed “subordinate to the existing structure, and blends in a casual manner” such that the “character and materials will remain intact or unchanged” (Ortiz, Personal Communication, July 12, 2022). The CODG seeks to integrate materials construed compatible with the historic fabric of the Main House, such that the whole of the build will “retain the feel, and character of the main building…so as to minimize the impact, and retain the feel of compatibility in both design and construction.”
PGCC 1-17-24
5 Research Procedures
On June 14, 2022, this investigator initiated this Phase Two Historical Assessment of the property under consideration, and drew upon that documentation, photography, and initial planning documents required to complete the Phase One assessment. The Phase One assessment was based on an on-site photographic survey and a study of construction details and elements identified with the main dwelling at the aforementioned address. Photography and the review of construction details and elements addressed all exposed elevations of the building and exterior features, in addition to the largely modified Carriage House situated on the parcel. The completion of the on-site portion of the photographic survey and architectural review was followed by the analysis of construction details from photographic elevations, and additional information and documents available through public records housed at the City of Pacific Planning Division office.
Additional information was available from online sources including the 2011 City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement and 2018-2019 Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report by Page & Turnbull, Inc., the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory Database (2011), and other documentary sources pertaining to the City of Pacific Grove Planning Division and Monterey County APN Search, GIS-based online databases and mapping tools, and other available documentary sources for the region specifically pertinent to this historical study.
Historical Background
The City of Pacific Grove is characterized by nine broad historic contexts or themes that span the prehistory of the Monterey Peninsula through to the post-World War II growth of the city (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011a: 13). These historic contexts include 1) Residential Development; 2) Commercial Development; 3) Civic Growth; 4) Transportation & Infrastructure; 5) Ethnic & Cultural Diversity; 6) Social, Religious, or Cultural Institutions, Movements & Trends; 7) Recreation, Leisure & Tourism; 8) Development & Booster Organizations; and 9) Environmentalism. These themes are intertwined with six periods or timeframes of development that further characterize the history of Pacific Grove (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011a: 14-16). These periods include: 1) Native American & Mission Periods (to 1820); 2) Mexican & Early American Periods (1821 - 1872); 3) Early Development of Pacific Grove (1873 - 1902); 4) Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 - 1926); 5) City of Homes (1927 - 1945); and 6) Suburban Expansion (1946 - 1965). Of these themes, the property is most closely associated with the Residential Development of the City of Pacific Grove.
More specifically, the period of Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 - 1926) for the buildings under study.
Native American & Mission Periods (to 1820)
Archaeological, ethnohistorical, and linguistic data indicate that at the time of European contact, the Esselen, Southern Ohlone/Costanoan (Rumsen), and Northern Salinan populated the region now identified with Monterey County (Breschini and Haversat 1986: 14; CSAC 2012a, 2012b; Kroeber 1925: 462, 544; UCB 2013). Linguistic studies hypothesized six language families that represent prehistoric California, including Athabaskan, Uto-Aztecan, Penutian, Yok-Utian, Hokan, PGCC 1-17-24
6 Chumash, and Yukian (Golla 2007: 71; UCB 2013). Descendants of Hokan (Esselen) and Penutian (Rumsen) speakers occupied the area that would later become the Royal Presidio Monterey.
Hokan speakers are hypothesized to have entered and settled the coast of central California approximately 4,000 to 6000 years ago (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 192). These peoples are thought to be ancestors of the Esselen (and possibly Salinan as well), whose presence in Monterey County began circa 2,500 to 4,000 years ago (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 193). The Penutian speakers are hypothesized to have entered and settled central California approximately 2,500 to 5,000 years ago (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 191). These incoming Penutian speakers migrated into the Esselen territory and subsequently influenced Esselen expansion south along the Big Sur coast (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 196, 2008: 18).
Speakers of the Esselen language, or the Huelel language as it has been referred to more recently, occupied the northern Santa Lucia Mountain range and coastal plains of Big Sur (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 17; Shaul 1995: 191-192; UCB 2013). The five primary Esselen districts or multi-village communities identified at Spanish contact include Excelen, Eslenajan, Imunajan, Ecgeajan, and Aspasniajan (Milliken 1990: 59). These districts spanned Carmel Valley in the northwest and further inland regions near the Arroyo Seco, Salinas River, and adjacent creeks of southeastern Monterey County (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 6; Milliken 1990: 59).
Population projections for the Esselen range from 500 to 1,300 speakers and, as such, the Esselen were among the smallest groups in California (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 5).
The Rumsen territory spanned the San Francisco Bay and Carquinez Strait in the north to the Big Sur and Salinas rivers in the south (Levy 1978: 485; Milliken 1995: 19). The three primary Southern Ohlone/Costanoan districts within Monterey County (from the Monterey Peninsula to the Big Sur River) identified at Spanish contact include Rumsen, Ensen, and Sargentaruc (Breschini and Haversat 2004: 6; UCB 2013). These districts are collectively construed as part of the Rumsen ethnolinguistic group consisting of approximately 800 speakers (UCB, 2013).
In 1768, Spanish land and naval expeditions were dispatched with the intention of rediscovering and settling Monterey, originally identified by Sebastian Vizcaíno in 1602-1603 (Walton 2001: 19; Williams 1993: 5). Captain Gaspar de Portolá led the land expedition but was unable to locate the Monterey Bay despite having passed through the region (Walton 2001: 19; Williams 1993: 5). In 1769, Portolá made his second attempt to relocate Monterey and retraced his way from the earlier land expedition (Walton 2001: 19). Father Junípero Serra, OFM, the first President of the missions of Alta California, followed Portolá by sea aboard the San Antonio, also called El Príncipe (Serra 1955a: 161).
On May 31, 1770, the San Antonio anchored in the port of Monterey (Serra 1955a: 161). “About a rifle shot from the beach,” Serra founded El Real Presidio de San Carlos de Monte Rey, or the Royal Presidio of San Carlos of Monterey on June 3, 1770 as a joint mission and military outpost (Serra 1955a: 171). The Presidio functioned as the center of cultural, political, and economic activities for the diverse soldiers and settlers who left their homelands for the frontier in search of PGCC 1-17-24
7 a new life (Lucido 2015: 3). The joint Presidio and Mission, however, was short-lived. Governor Pedro Fages’ diary indicates that in 1771 Marquis de Croix, the Viceroy of New Spain, ordered the mission’s relocation to the banks of the Carmel River, as well as its name change (Fages 1937: 80). As such, Serra moved the Mission to Carmel, approximately six miles south of the Presidio where there was more land and water suitable for agricultural production (Serra 1955a:
171, Serra 1955d: 406; Williams 1993: 14).
Carmel Mission was supported by agricultural facilities throughout the Monterey Peninsula, although there are no known references to such in Pacific Grove nor have any been located (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 30). There is documented evidence in Pacific Grove during the Spanish period associated with the construction of a small auxiliary fortification or battery at Point Pinos ((Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 31). Its exact location remains unknown.
Mexican & Early American Periods (1821 - 1872)
Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, established as a Republic in 1824, and the missions were subsequently secularized in the 1830s. During the Mexican period, mission lands were redistributed among an emerging Californio rancho elite (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 33).
Descendants of Esselen and Rumsen from the Carmel Mission became rancho laborers to support the growing cattle industry (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 33).
Pacific Grove was originally part of the Mexican land grant or Rancho Punta de Los Pinos (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011a: 34). José María Armenta, a soldier at the Royal Presidio of Monterey, was granted the rancho in 1833 by Governor José Figueroa. In 1844, ownership included José Abrego (Digital Commons 2019a, 2019b). The land grant comprised approximately 2,667 acres and included the modern-day locations of the Monterey Bay Aquarium (originally Point Aulones or “Abalone Point”) to Cypress Point in Pebble Beach (Digital Commons 2019a; Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 34). On September 22, 1852, Jacob P. Leese filed a claim for the rancho (General Land Office No. 279), which was later acquired by Darrell Stokes Gregory (Digital Commons 2019a, 2019b; Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011a: 40). In 1864, Gregory sold the rancho to David Jacks (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 40). Jacks also acquired ownership of the land of the present-day cities and communities of Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, the Del Monte Forest (i.e., Pebble Beach), and Fort Ord (MCHS 2019). The rancho was patented on November 19, 1880 (Digital Commons 2019a, 2019b). In June 1889, Pacific Grove became incorporated (Pacific Grove Library 2019).
During this year, the Southern Pacific Railway arrived in the city, prompting further development.
Early Development of Pacific Grove (1873 - 1902)
The theme of “Early Development of Pacific Grove (1873 - 1902)” encompasses a broad period of development in Pacific Grove, including both residential and commercial (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 96). Residential development in this instance is deemed significant given the transition from encampments to becoming an incorporated city (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 96). While the architectural chronology of this period comprised Gothic Revival style (the 1870s–1890s); Italianate style (1870s - 1880s); Stick/Eastlake style (1880s–1900); and Queen Anne style (1880s PGCC 1-17-24
8 - 1905), the residential development during this early period comprised three vernacular architectural styles that reflected the relaxed stylistic rules and a loose Folk Victorian aesthetic including 1) “tent cottages” with front-facing gables that were converted from original tent frames; 2) modest dwellings of one to one and a half stories, usually with a hip roof; and 3) larger residences that were two stories high and richly ornamented (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 45. 96).
Dwellings of all styles were typically on small lot sizes with a narrow setback from the front and side (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 97). In addition, dwellings were of wood frame construction with gable, hip, or combination roof forms (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 97). It was also typical for dwellings to have wood-sash windows and wood-paneled or glazed doors. Siding commonly comprised wood board and batten, wood channel drop, and wood shingle cladding. Many residences also had associated ancillary structures (e.g., storage sheds, stables, etc.) that were later converted into carports or garages and various landscape features (e.g., walls, fences, trees, steps, etc.) (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 97).
Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 - 1926)
The theme of “Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 - 1926)” focuses on the commercial and economic growth (e.g., tourism) of the city (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 115). However, civicrelated development is also important during this time with the construction of a fire department, library, museum, and schools. The primary styles of residential buildings (i.e., permanent as opposed to tent camping) associated with the period between 1903 and 1926 include the following types (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 120): 1) Victorian architecture (pre-1903 to 1910); 2) Craftsman style (1905-1930); 3) Colonial Revival style (1905-1955); and 4) Spanish Colonial Revival style (the 1920s-1950s). Other common styles included Vernacular (1900-the 1930s), Prairie Style (1905-1925), and Shingle Style (1900-1915) (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 173-175). Typically, residential buildings associated with this period consist of rectangular or L-shaped plans, onestory, wood frame construction, gable and hip roofs, feature set-backs from the front lot lines or streets, thereby permitting space for both front and rear yards, and detached garages for larger lots (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 170-171, 259).
City of Homes (1927 - 1945)
The theme of “City of Homes (1927 - 1945)” highlights the residential expansion of the city (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011c: 193). In addition, the build-out of recreational facilities for both Depressionera work programs and tourism occur during this time. The primary styles of residences associated with the period between 1927 and 1945 include the following types (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011c: 220): 1) Spanish Colonial and Pueblo Revival styles (the 1920s-1930s); 2) Tudor Revival style (1920s-1930s); 3) Minimal Traditional Style (1930s-1940s); and 4) Ranch Style (1940s-1970s). Page & Turnbull, Inc. (2011c: 220) again noted the prevalence of vernacular buildings as common, “most frequently appearing as simplified versions of Craftsman-style buildings or following English cottage precedents.”
PGCC 1-17-24
9 As in the previous theme, residential buildings associated with this period consist of rectangular or L-shaped plans, one-story, wood frame construction, gable and hip roofs, and feature set-backs from the front lot lines or streets, thereby permitting space for both front and rear yards, and detached garages for larger lots (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 170-171, 259). Cladding varied depending on the construction date of the residences. For example, the period between 1927 and 1945 featured typical cladding consisting of wood board and batten and channel drop siding until 1910, after which wood shiplap, bevel, and novelty siding were more commonplace (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 171). For the period between 1927 and 1945, stucco cladding was popular, although the aforementioned wood siding types were still utilized (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011:
259). In some cases, asbestos shingle cladding was also used. In addition, most residences originally had double-hung or casement wood-sash windows, as well as wood-paneled or glazed doors (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 171, 260).
Suburban Expansion (1946 - 1965)
The theme of “Suburban Expansion (1946 - 1965)” represents the largest and most rapid period of expansion of Pacific Grove associated with the post-World War II development (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 239). Subsequently, the population of Pacific Grove had increased from 6,000 to over 16,000 people by 1960. Therefore, to accommodate the growing population during this period, residential construction expanded to undeveloped areas and created new suburbs, such as Weldon Grove, Marino Pines, and Del Monte Park (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 259).
The primary styles of residences associated with this period include the following types: 1) Traditional Ranch Style (1940s-1970s); 2) Colonial Revival Style (1940s-1960s); and 3) Modern Style (1940s-1970s) (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 260-262). Most of these residential buildings associated with this period consist of wood frame construction, rectangular or L-shaped plans, and are typically set back from the street with both front and rear yards (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 259). One-story houses are the most common, although split and two-story houses are also present. Hip and gable roofs are the most common type of roofline. Cladding consisted primarily of cement stucco, although wood shiplap, board and batten, and clapboard are also found. In addition, most residences originally had double-hung or casement wood-sash windows, as well as aluminum windows (1960) and unglazed doors (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 171, 260).
Background for the Hermle & Collins House (1926 to present) The Hermle & Collins home is located within one of the subdivisions and additions plotted during Pacific Grove Comes of Age period (1903-1926) (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 118). The property was originally part of the “Pacific Grove Retreat'' subdivision based on a survey completed by St.
John Cox in 1857 (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 47, 49). Lots in this subdivision lacked uniformity in size but typically spanned 30 feet wide by 60 feet deep (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 49). Multiple Victorian homes were constructed on 10th St following the creation of this subdivision.
PGCC 1-17-24
10 On May 12, 1926, a petition for building permit was submitted by Frank Ingerson (see Appendix IV, Figure 1). The petition stated that the residence would be a one-story house with a shingle roof atop a cement foundation. The petition stated that the home would consist of four rooms, one bathroom, and a fireplace with a brick chimney. The estimated cost for the house was $2,500.00.
Two years later a valuation report of the Hermle & Collins home was completed on February 21, 1928 (see Appendix IV, Figure 2). The report indicates that the owner was A. F. Armstrong and that the then two-year-old home was in “good condition.” The house was measured as 24’ x 30’ feet whereas the carriage port was 10’ x 16’. According to the Pacific Grove City Directories of 1947 and 1951, Armstrong resided in the house along with his wife, Adrell (Ancestry.com 2011a, 2011b). No further documentation at the Pacific Grove Planning Division associated with the property appears until 1952 (see Appendix IV, Figure 3).
By 1952, a new property owner was identified with the home according to City of Pacific Grove building permit no. 5695 (see Appendix IV, Figure 3). The owner, Mrs. Boyd, petitioned to add an 11’ x 18’ concrete floor in the garage port. The addition was estimated to cost $200. According to the 1953 Pacific Grove City Directory, Lolita (misidentified as “Lovita”) Boyd resided at the HermleCollins home with her daughter, Mavis Boyd, who was listed as a “student” (Ancestry.com 2011c).
Lolita’s full name was “Lolita Dolores Kershaw Crabb (Boyd)” and she was a silent moving pictures actress (Pacific Gardens Chapel 2021). It is unknown as to when the Boyd’s moved into the property, but following Lolita’s death on January 30, 1954, Mavis soon moved out of Pacific Grove to Santa Cruz (Ancestry 2019; Pacific Gardens Chapel 2021).
Historical research for the period between 1954 and 1977 did not identify property owners or other associated building construction documentation of the Hermle-Collins’s home. The next property owners affiliated with the Hermle-Collins’s home were Douglas and Marilynn Gustafson as of 1977. At that time, they resided at 117 and 110, both on 10th Street according to the Monterey Peninsula Directories (Ancestry.com 2011a, b, c; City of Pacific Grove n.d.). Douglas was a realtor who worked in Salinas (Ancestry.com 2011).
In 1977, the Hermle-Collins’s home was evaluated for consideration to be listed on the City of Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) (City of Pacific Grove n.d.). The HermleCollins’s home was subsequently added to the HRI in 1978 (Permit #141) (City of Pacific Grove n.d.; Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 9). It should be noted that the HRI incorrectly lists the construction date of the residence as “1891,” it is likely that the recorder was referring to one of Gustafson’s other properties on 10th street, such as 117 (a single-family dwelling built in 1888) or the 110th single-family dwelling (built 1890, Permit #140) (City of Pacific Grove n.d.). These earlier residences would have been associated with the early development of Pacific Grove (1873-1902) (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 45). The 117 residence, also known as the Brown House, is a Folk Victorian building, also listed on the HRI (Permit #144) (City of Pacific Grove n.d.). The HRI Permit Number on the City of Pacific Grove Existing also incorrectly lists the Hermle-Collins home as built in 1920 (City of Pacific Grove n.d.).
PGCC 1-17-24
11 According to the inspection record (building permit no. 4848), on December 18, 1985, the property owners changed the electric service from 110 to 220 volts in the main residence (see Appendix IV, Figure 4). This was completed by Larkin Electric.
The half-story dormer on the rear of the residence constitutes a more recent, circa 1990s, addition to the residence in order to accommodate the aforementioned addition of a second-story loft, which significantly altered the roofline with a sizable dormer–like projection required to install both a bath and bedroom combination.
According to the City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011b:
179): “Rear additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable. However, additions that compromise a building’s form and scale, are not acceptable.” In this instance, the addition of the second story, replete with dormer-like addition, does not interfere with the viewshed as seen from 10th Street or Ocean View Boulevard.
The City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement states that “An early twentieth-century Pacific Grove residence that retains its original garage would be considered to have especially high integrity. These outbuildings derive their significance from the significance of the residence and are typically not eligible in their own right” (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011b: 180). Consequently, because the original form and scale of the garage/carriage house outbuilding has been significantly modified, and doubled in size as per total footprint, the integrity of the outbuilding under consideration does not contribute to the significance of the residence.
Description of the Historic Resource
The Hermle & Collins home is a one-and-a-half-story single-family dwelling constructed in 1926.
The residence is a Shingle Style home consisting of a side-gabled roof with wood shingles, a wood frame, and a brick chimney. The 1,163 sq ft home consists of four rooms, including two bedrooms (floor plan indicates three, see Appendix III, Figure 2), and two full bathrooms (Zillow n.d.). The main facade has an “eyebrow” over the primary entrance to the home with the word “Playhouse” carved above the door. The character-defining features of the Hermle & Collins home consist of wood-shingle roof cladding, a “bulged eyebrow” above the main entrance, flared eaves, a steeply pitched roofline, a retrofitted dormer on the rear of the residence, and a side-gabled roof. The Vernacular features of the home include its simple form and painted and irregularly configured wood cladding. Moreover, whereas the original rectangular one-story footprint of the Hermle & Collins home was rectangular in form, which is consistent with both Craftsman style and Vernacular buildings, a remodel added a second story loft which significantly altered the roofline with a sizable dormer–like projection required to install a bath and bedroom combination.
A 406 sq ft guest/granny unit converted from the original detached garage or carriage house is also located on the parcel lot. The guest unit consists of board and batten cladding.
Existing Elevations
Exterior - West (Front) Facade
PGCC 1-17-24
12 The main facade of the Hermle & Collins House fronts 10th Street. The fenestration consists of three piercings, two double-pane wood casement windows (8 panes per window), and a single narrow red ochre-painted wood plank door replete with wrought-iron hinges and brass hardware.
Each of the casement windows is framed by Forest green-painted wood plank shutters replete with a diamond-patterned array of 1.0” holes at the center of each shutter. Over the main door is a slightly bowed Forest green-painted lintel with a wooden nameplate with the words “The Playhouse” crafted from hand-cut and affixed wooden lettering. The interior door jamb is scalloped in five layers of wood trim. The whole of the elevation is clad in horizontally-oriented, variablysized, wood shingle siding with light yellow to ivory paint, with forest green painted window and door trim and framing. A diminutive three-stepped red brick porch is centered on the main door.
The tapered red brick chimney of the north elevation rises well above the gabled roof and is visible from the street. The shingled façade, “bulged eyebrow” over the main door, and the bowed ridge pole at the summit of the gable constitute architectural details consonant with the Shingle Style of the region (Appendix III, Figure 3).
Exterior - North Elevation
The north elevation fronts Pearl Street. As with the west elevation, or main façade, the whole of the elevation is clad in horizontally-oriented, variably-sized, wood shingle siding with a paint scheme consonant with that of the main facade or west elevation. This portion of the elevation features both the north end gable and red-brick chimney as character-defining features. The fenestration consists of seven piercings; including a wooden kitchen door with a conjoined fixed wood frame window consisting of 4 window panes and a screen door, two fixed multi-pane, and two multi-pane wooden casement windows. A single horizontally-oriented north-facing fixed multipane window piercing is in turn identified with the second-floor dormer-like addition. Secondary piercings consist of two sub-floor piercings, including a crawl space (plywood panel) door at the northeast corner of the building, and a single horizontally-oriented vent with a metal grill at the right side of the kitchen door. A metal utility (electrical) box is situated at the left-hand side of the kitchen door, and utility lines are to be found affixed to the area immediately to the right of the aforementioned door.
Exterior - East Elevation
The east elevation fronting the backyard is stylistically consonant with that cladding and those window treatments found on the north and west elevations and consists of horizontally-oriented, variably-sized, wood shingle siding with a paint scheme echoing that of the main facade and north elevation. The fenestration consists of nine piercings encompassing both the Upper and Lower Levels of the elevation. Whereas that portion of the elevation identified with the Main or Lower Level incorporates two wooden casement windows with eight fixed-pane glazing per casement window frame at both the north and south ends of the building, as well as two fixed four-pane windows, two horizontally-oriented wood vents at the upper northeast corner of the lower elevation, and a single (plywood) crawl space door panel at the lower northeast corner. The Upper-Level Loft constitutes a 1990s era addition that takes the form of a larger dormer-like build.
Said addition includes three piercings, with two wooden casement windows, one at each end of PGCC 1-17-24
13 the elevation. At the center of the elevation identified with the Loft is a small louvered glass bath window. Unlike the enclosed eaves of the Main Level, the eaves for the loft remain open. Where exposed vent pipes and other utilities are concerned, these are largely restricted to that portion of the elevation identified with the Main Level. These include a bathroom vent pipe affixed to the cladding immediately adjacent to the left of the central bathroom window. To the right of the bathroom window located at the center of the elevation is affixed a water heater cabinet with vent pipes extending through the Mail Level roofline. To the left of the water heater cabinet is situated the gas meter.
Exterior - South Elevation
The south elevation fronts the concrete driveway at that location, as with each of the other three elevations, the residence is clad in horizontally-oriented, variably-sized, wood shingle siding with a paint scheme consonant with that of the main facade or west elevation. This portion of the elevation features the south-end gable. The fenestration consists of three piercings; including a French Door ensemble installed during the course of a mid-1980s remodel, and two fixed multipane wood-frame windows. The diminutive square window on the Main Level, located at the southwest corner of the building, consists of four panes; whereas the vertically-oriented window just beneath the pitch of the south end-gable consists of six panes.
Character-Defining Features
While the Hermle & Collins home was constructed in 1926, it consists of character-defining features for a Shingle Style house from the late nineteenth to early 20th century (McAlester 2020:
372-374; Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 153, 174). The character-defining features for a Shingle Style house in Pacific Grove include the following: “Wood shingle cladding, either entirely or as a prominent element; wavy wall surfaces, particularly bulged ‘eyebrows’ above windows; steeply pitched rooflines, sometimes with gambrel or gable-on-hip configurations and flared eaves; frequently shed dormers on one or both sides of the roof peak” (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 174).
Of these Shingle style features, the Hermle & Collins home consists of wood shingle roof cladding, a “bulged eyebrow” above the main entrance, flared eaves, a steeply pitched roofline, dormer on the rear of the residence, and a side-gabled roof.
Evaluation for Significance
The Hermle & Collins residence does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance, or the California Register of Historical Resources, and that despite the fact that the home was originally added to the Historic Resource Inventory for Pacific Grove in 1978 (HRI, Permit # 141) (City of Pacific Grove n.d.). Significant alterations to the east half of the gabled roof resulting from the installation of a particularly north-south “dormer” spanning a second-story room addition necessitated modifications to the roof line, and were thereby key to our reassessment in this instance.
PGCC 1-17-24
14 National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion A because the property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion B because the property is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion C because the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction identified with Shingle Style construction identified with Monterey County.
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion D because the property does not demonstrate information, or the potential to yield information important to understanding the prehistory or history of Pacific Grove or the Monterey County region more generally.
California Register of Historical Resources Criteria for Evaluation
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 1 because the property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 2 because the property is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
PGCC 1-17-24
15 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 3 because the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction identified with Shingle Style construction identified with Monterey County.
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 4 because the property does not demonstrate information, or the potential to yield information important to understanding the prehistory or history of Pacific Grove or the Monterey Peninsula region more generally.
Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (Pacific Grove Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 23.76): Section 23.76.025 Evaluation criteria (a) Whether the structure has significant character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city of Pacific Grove, the state of California, or the United States;
While the Hermle & Collins home is broadly associated with the theme of residential development in the city of Pacific Grove, it does not exemplify significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city of Pacific Grove, the state of California, or the United States. The strong pattern of residential growth for this neighborhood, and more broadly, within the Pacific Grove Retreat subdivision, is not demonstrated by the Hermle & Collins home given its period of significance is 1926, which is later than the early development on 10th Street. As such, the Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion A.
(b) Whether it is the site of a significant historic event; The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion B because there is no evidence that the property was the site of a significant historic event. (c) Whether it is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the city of Pacific Grove; The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion C because there is no evidence that the property is identified with a person who or an organization that significantly contributed to the culture, history, or development of the city of Pacific Grove. (d) Whether it is a particularly good example of a period or style; PGCC 1-17-24
16 The Hermle & Collins home is indicative of its period of significance (1926) by comparison with other residences (1945-1966) in the neighborhood, and its Shingle Style construction includes distinctive characteristics necessary to be construed as a particularly good example of a style.
Therefore, the Hermle & Collins home does appear to be eligible under Criterion D. (e) Whether it is one of the few remaining examples in the city of Pacific Grove possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen; The Hermle & Collins home appears to be eligible under Criterion E because the property is one of the few remaining examples that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (Shingle Style construction) identified with the city of Pacific Grove; both during its period of significance (1926), as well as in the following period (1927 and 1945), and does possess distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen. (f) Whether it is a notable work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has significantly influenced the development of the city of Pacific Grove; The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion F because historical research undertaken did not reveal the name of an architect or master builder. (g) Whether it embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation;
The Hermle & Collins home does not embody elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation. (h) Whether it has singular physical characteristics uniquely representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or of the city of Pacific Grove; The Hermle & Collins home does not appear to be eligible under Criterion H. The property integrates the Shingle Style in what is otherwise a simplified Craftsman and therefore does not embody singular physical characteristics uniquely representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or of the city of Pacific Grove. Furthermore, the Hermle & Collins home does not contribute to the theme of residential growth for this neighborhood or the city of Pacific Grove given that its period of significance (1926) predates this distinctive development.
(i) Whether a resource with historical or cultural significance retains historic integrity. [Ord. 17-023 § 2, 2017; Ord. 01-25 § 1, 2001; Ord. 97-23 § 1, 1997].
The Hermle & Collins home does appear to be eligible under Criterion I because the property does retain sufficient historic integrity for listing in the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory.
Specifically, the property retains the integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. However, despite that level of sufficient historic integrity noted, the modification PGCC 1-17-24
17 of the southeast piercing, or French Door, entryway, and the addition of a second-story loft with an oversized dormer-like addition to the east half of the roofline, necessarily altered the original roofline and fenestration of those areas. Nevertheless, said circa 1990s modifications did not impact the viewshed of the house.
Aspects of Integrity
The Hermle & Collins home and guest unit retain their integrity of location because the property was originally constructed at 111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950.
The Hermle & Collins home does retain integrity of design. As indicated throughout this report, the residence under consideration by and large retains its original footprint, elevation plan, fenestration, roofline, and materials. The only exceptions noted are those identified with the southeast piercing or French Door install, and the addition of a second-floor loft that necessitated the addition of a larger than usual dormer-like feature at the east half of the gabled roof to accommodate a second-floor bath.
Alterations to the fenestration at the southeast corner of the building and the addition of the dormer-like feature did not noticeably alter the original design plan. Moreover, the 1990s addition of a dormer is not uncharacteristic of the stylistic conventions of this type of building, although significant modifications to the roofline stands as disqualifying to eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance or the California Register of Historical Resources.
The Hermle & Collins home and guest unit do not retain their integrity of setting because the immediate neighborhood consists (primarily) of single-family dwellings that are not contemporaneous with the period of significance (1926) or the associated theme of “Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 -1926)” for the Hermle & Collins home. Some of the immediately surrounding homes would have been associated with the early development of Pacific Grove (1873-1902) (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 45) while others are more modern.
The Hermle & Collins home retains its integrity of materials. While a host of materials congruent in appearance to the 1926 building were integrated into the circa 1990s retrofit and remodel for the addition of the second story loft and dormer install, these do not significantly detract from or compromise the original design. The only other departure was the installation of the French Doors at the southeast corner of the south elevation, which replaced an existing piercing, mainly the doorway once located at that portion of the south elevation.
The Hermle & Collins home retains the integrity of workmanship, as that modicum of remodeling already noted did not detract from the original craftsmanship of the original 1926 build. In effect, the aforementioned remodeling did not decidedly alter the original cladding or fenestration still visible today, although the roofline was changed to a significant degree.
PGCC 1-17-24