18 The Hermle & Collins home and guest unit do not retain their integrity of feeling because while the property is broadly associated with the residential development of Pacific Grove, it is in some respects, out of place within the neighborhood. 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. Therefore, the Hermle & Collins home does not contribute to the feeling of residential growth for the period of significance.
The Hermle & Collins home and guest unit do not retain the integrity of association because there is no direct link between the property and an event or person for which the property is significant.
Impacts of the Proposed Project
First, it should be noted that the former Carriage House has already undergone extensive remodeling as the result of a host of 1990s era modifications that doubled the floor plan and converted the gabled shed into a 398 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). These modifications resulted in the gutting of much of the circa late 1920s historic fabric, including 1) the doubling of the structure via the addition of a shed-roof room-block at the north elevation, 2) the recladding of much of the building with board-and-batten consonant with the original cladding identified with the west elevation, and 3) the retrofit and infill of the original Carriage House “barn” doors with a standard entry door and a multi-paned sash window.
The proposed project seeks to further expand the footprint of what remains of the original Carriage House by way of the addition of 1) a 396.7 sq. ft. Main Level “Master Bedroom,” 2) a 276.0 sq. ft.
Upper Level addition over the Master Bedroom, 3) a 3’ 10” wide Upper Level (gabled) hallway connected to the 412.0 sq. ft. 1990s era “dormer” (Hallway Two), and 4) an Entry Hallway with conjoined Bathroom One on the Main Level connecting the former Carriage House Master Bedroom addition to the Main House at the center of the east elevation. In addition, that portion of the former Carriage House that once accommodated a garage enclosure will be converted back into a garage, and the north half of the structure will be expanded to include the aforementioned 396.7 sq. ft. Main Level Master Bedroom addition.
That portion of the Main House affected is largely restricted to a 3’ 10” wide hallway piercing the center of the lower register of the east or main elevation. The new piercing will entail the opening of a hallway entry point at the current location of the First Floor bathroom unit replete with a diminutive casement window. In order to create the piercing for the hallway, both the First Floor Bathroom and the casement window in question will be removed. Accordingly, the only other change to the existing Main House will be that of the Upper Level Hallway and the addition of a piercing to accommodate the addition via the Second Floor Bathroom added within the 1990s era Dormer.
PGCC 1-17-24
19 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, particularly given that the installation of an enclosed Upper Level walkway will require the retrofit of a relatively narrow access point through the east elevation of the 1990s dormer addition (Appendix IV, Figure 1). As noted, the 1990s remodel of the east half of the gabled roof of the Main House resulted in the modification of the original roofline of the east elevation by way of the expansion of the half-height Upper Level and the buildout of a 276.0 sq. ft. dormer with enclosed bathroom (Appendix IV, Figure 5). The proposed project, by contrast, seeks the removal of a single original sash window on the Main Floor, as well as the removal of a second diminutive louvered window at the center of the 1990s era dormer (Appendix III, Figure 3). 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.
Mitigation
Mitigation should include feasible measures that would either avoid or reduce the effects of the proposed project on the historic appearance of those piercings affected. Mitigation may include but is not limited to, the use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures, the State Historic Building Code, and documentation using the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or alternative standards. As noted in the foregoing project description, Claudio Ortiz, CODG, Inc., Design+Build delineated the plan to extend the existing design, style, cladding, fenestration, and fixtures to the proposed main and upper level room additions such that the actual and visual impact to the main building is construed nominal.
The objective, accordingly, is to “advance the mitigation in a manner that retains the feel and character of the historic main building…with additions deemed subordinate, and thereby compatible to the main building, thereby minimizing the overall visual impact” (Claudio Ortiz, Personal Communication, July 12, 2022).
Final Assessment
The Hermle & Collins property retains sufficient historical integrity and adequately represents those dimensions deemed key to an assessment of historic significance as per those standards reviewed in the foregoing narrative for continued local listing in the Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory. However, the circa 1990s remodel of the upper half-floor resulted in significant alterations to the roofline of the east half of the gabled roof, including the buildout of a large retrofitted dormer spanning much of the entirety of the east half of the gable. As such, given that the alteration of the roofline of historically significant buildings is construed a point of disqualification, the building was as such rendered ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance or the California Register of Historical Resources (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011: 179).
PGCC 1-17-24
20 Finally, it should be noted that any renovations to the building and or property that requires construction-related excavation and or trenching are subject to those CEQA requirements mandated by the state. Therefore, all excavation in such an archaeologically and historically sensitive region will require archaeological monitoring by an RPA (Register of Professional Archaeologists) certified archaeologist. In the event of the recovery of other significant cultural or historical resources, the archaeological monitor or project archaeologist may opt to more fully recover and or advance mitigation measures during project excavations.
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states it is a misdemeanor to knowingly disturb a human burial. Therefore, the homeowners and or the project archaeologist are mandated by state and federal law to contact the Coroner’s Office if human remains are disturbed during project-related excavation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rubén G. Mendoza, PhD, RPA, Archaeologist/Historian
Archives & Archaeology
831-320-9360
and,
Jennifer A. Lucido, Associate
Archives & Archaeology
PGCC 1-17-24
21 APPENDIX I: REFERENCES
PGCC 1-17-24
22 References
Ancestry.com
2011a Monterey Peninsula Directory, 1976. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1521003 235_0374-
00365?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Oug63&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true &pId=1383535795
2011b Monterey Peninsula Directory, 1977. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1521003 235_0363-
00406?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Oug58&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true &pId=1399323431
2011c Monterey Peninsula Directory, 1982. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1521003 235_0368-
00330?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Oug65&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true &pId=1430232767
2019 Oakland Tribune; Publication Date: 30 Jan 1954. U.S., Newspapers.com Obituary Index, 1800s-current [database on-line].
Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/5226002:61843?tid=&pid=&queryId=b14caa84aa071074cd87d823b ed11d97&_phsrc=YvS52&_phstart=successSource
2011a Pacific Grove, California, City Directory, 1947. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Available online at: https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/255793560:2469?tid=&pid=&queryId=6f4fe95bfddcc9fecdc614268e 2ce961&_phsrc=YvS50&_phstart=successSource
2011b Pacific Grove, California, City Directory, 1951. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Available online at: https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/255793560:2469?tid=&pid=&queryId=6f4fe95bfddcc9fecdc614268e 2ce961&_phsrc=YvS50&_phstart=successSource
2011b Pacific Grove, California, City Directory, 1953. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Available online PGCC 1-17-24
23 at: https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/255793560:2469?tid=&pid=&queryId=6f4fe95bfddcc9fecdc614268e 2ce961&_phsrc=YvS50&_phstart=successSource
City of Pacific Grove
2011 Historic Resources Inventory Database. Available online at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/living/community-economicdevelopment/planning/historic-resources/historic-resources-inventory (accessed January 3, 2022).
2022 Parcel Viewer. Available online at:
https://citypacificgrove.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a9c7 6858b6604b9dbfc6ef30d56656b1 (accessed January 3, 2022). n.d. Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Existing Permits https://portal.iworq.net/PACIFICGROVE/permit/602/2512469 (accessed January 3, 2022).
n.d. Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Existing Permits https://portal.iworq.net/PACIFICGROVE/permit/602/2512472 (accessed January 3, 2022).
Digital Commons @ CSUMB
2019a "APN, Township-Range and Other Historical Land Data for Monterey County Ranchos - DRAFT" (2018). Maps, Plats, Sketches & Surveys. 503. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_cgb_14/503 (accessed July 16, 2019).
2019b "Punta de Pinos - Diseños, GLO No. 279, Monterey County, and associated historical documents" (2016). Individual Ranchos in Monterey and SLO Counties.
68. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_cgb_2_a/68 (accessed July 16, 2019).
Google Maps
2022 "111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950." Map. Google Maps.
Google, 3 January. 2022. Web. 3 Jan 2022.
McAlester, Virginia
2020 A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Knopf.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester
1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf.
Monterey County Historical Society (MCHS)
2019 “Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California.” Available online at:
http://mchsmuseum.com/pacificgrove.html (accessed July 16, 2019).
PGCC 1-17-24
24 Pacific Gardens Chapel
2021 “Obituary of Mavis Boyd Drake 1935-2021.” Available online at:
https://pacificgardenschapel.com/tribute/details/206673/MavisDrake/obituary.htm l (accessed February 16, 2022).
Pacific Grove Library
2019 “Chronology of Pacific Grove History.” Available online at:
https://www.pacificgrovelibrary.org/community/local-history/chronology-pacificgrove-history (accessed July 16, 2019).
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
2011 City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Pacific Grove. Available online at:
https://files.cityofpacificgrove.org/Document_Center/Departments/Community%2 0Development/Housing/Historic%20Resources/PG%20HCS_2011.10.31- FINAL.pdf
Zillow
n.d. “111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950.” Available online at:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/111-10th-St-Pacific-Grove-CA93950/19323928_zpid/ (accessed January 3, 2022).
PGCC 1-17-24
25 APPENDIX II: FIGURES
PGCC 1-17-24
26 Figure 1: Location of the Hermle & Collins House (indicated by the light blue perimeter) at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000. Courtesy of City of Pacific Grove Parcel Viewer, 2022.
PGCC 1-17-24
27 Figure 2: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 98.79 East. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
Figure 3: “Playhouse” detail of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 43.50 Northeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
28 Figure 4: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 149.30 South-southeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
29 Figure 5: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 193.63 South-southwest. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
Figure 6: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 249.05 West-southwest. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
30 Figure 7: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 14.80 North-northeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
31 Figure 8: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 328.73 Northwest. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
32 Figure 9: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 22.36 North-northeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
33 Figure 10: View of Hermle & Collins House with bearing of 43.33 Northeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
Figure 11: View of Hermle & Collins Guest Unit with bearing of 83.34 East. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
34 Figure 12: View of Hermle & Collins Guest Unit with bearing of 153.81 South-southeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
Figure 13: View of Hermle & Collins Guest Unit with bearing of 137.91 Southeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
35 Figure 14: View of Hermle & Collins Guest Unit with bearing of 153.76 South-southeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
Figure 15: View of Hermle & Collins Guest Unit with bearing of 219.56 Southwest. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
36 Figure 16: View of Hermle & Collins Guest Unit with bearing of 75.64 East-northeast. Parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000.
PGCC 1-17-24
37 APPENDIX III: ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
PGCC 1-17-24
38 Figure 1: Floor plan of the garage and home located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (Zillow n.d.).
PGCC 1-17-24
39 Figure 2: As-built floor plan of the residence and garage/carriage house located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
40 Figure 3: As-built elevations of the main residence located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
41 Figure 4: As-built elevations of the garage/carriage house located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
42 APPENDIX IV: PROPOSED PROJECT / ELEVATIONS / PLANS
PGCC 1-17-24
43 Figure 1: Proposed footprint of the Main and Upper Levels of the residence and Carriage House/Garage located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
44 Figure 2: Proposed West Elevation or Main Facade of the Main residence and Carriage House/Garage located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
Figure 3: Proposed East or Rear Elevation of the Main residence and Carriage House/Garage located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
45 Figure 4: Proposed North Elevation of the Main residence and Carriage House/Garage located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
Figure 5: Proposed South Elevation of the Main residence and Carriage House/Garage located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
46 Figure 6: Proposed cladding, fixtures, and doors and windows for the Main residence and Carriage House/Garage located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001- 000 (CODG, Inc., 2021).
PGCC 1-17-24
47 APPENDIX V: PRIMARY SOURCES & HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
PGCC 1-17-24
48 Figure 1: Petition for Building Permit for the parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000. Courtesy of the City of Pacific Grove Planning Division, 2022.
PGCC 1-17-24
49 Figure 2: Validation record dated to February 21, 1928 for the parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000. Courtesy of the City of Pacific Grove Planning Division, 2022.
PGCC 1-17-24
50 Figure 3: Building permit dated to November 29, 1952 for the parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000. Courtesy of the City of Pacific Grove Planning Division, 2022.
PGCC 1-17-24
51 Figure 4: Building permit dated to December 18, 1985 for the parcel located at 111 10th Street, Pacific Grove͕, CA 93950, APN: 006-218-001-000. Courtesy of the City of Pacific Grove Planning Division, 2022.
PGCC 1-17-24
52 APPENDIX VI: DPR 523 FORMS
PGCC 1-17-24
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
NRHP Status Code 5S1, 3S, 3CS
Trinomial
*Resource Name or #: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
P3a. Description:
e. Other Locational Data: 36.621456877143, -121.911485607181 c. Address: 111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (APN 006218001000) *
*
*
d. UTM:
* P3b. Resource Attributes: HP02 (Single family property); HP04 (Ancillary building) *P7. Owner and Address:
Stockdale Sidney & Nancy
1404 La Cabra Dr Se
Albuquerque, NM 87123
*P8. Recorded by:
Hannah Simonson, Page & Turnbull
170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
*P5b. Description of Photo:
Primary façade, 8/2/2018.
Finalized: 10/18/2019
1920. Sources: PG HRI Database (6/19/18).
*P10. Survey Type: Reconnaissance
*P9. Date Recorded: 8/2/2018
P11. Citation: Page & Turnbull. "Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Survey Report." Prepared for the City of Pacific Grove, October 18, 2019 [Final Report].
Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other:
*
*
* P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (isolates, etc.) *a. County: Monterey
*P6. Date Constructed/Age & Sources:
Prehistoric Protohistoric
Historic Unknown
b. USGS Quad(s): Monterey, California (1997)
P5a. Photo
Latitude, Longitude (Decimal Degrees)
- Architectural Style(s): Shingle
- Construction Type: Wood Frame
- Number of Stories: 1.5
- Basement: Not Visible
- Garage: None
- Roof Type(s): Gable
- Roof Material(s): Wood Shingle
- Wall Material(s): Wood Shingle
- Window Type(s): Casement
- Window Material(s): Wood
- See Continuation Sheet 4 for
updated description
-
- Architectural Features: Chimney, Dormers, Flared Eaves - Decorative Details:
- Alterations:
- Additional Remarks: Eyebrow over entry. Dormer at rear façade appears to be an addition.
-
DPR523A (1/95) *Required Information
PGCC 1-17-24
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
Trinomial
*Resource Name or #: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
HRI #
*Recorded By: Hannah Simonson *Date Recorded: 8/2/2018
Finalized: 10/18/2019
Reference: Page & Turnbul City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement. Prepared for City of Pacific Grove, CA Architect/Builder:
Present Use: Residential
Original Owner:
Original Use: Residential
Historic Name:
Significance
Theme: Residential Development
Period of Development: Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903-1926) Integrity: Good Period of Significance: 1920
Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement
Eligible for Pacific Grove HRI: Yes Level of Significance: Local National/
California
Register
PG
Municipal
Code §23.76
Significance Discussion of Individual Eligiblity
A/1
B/2
C/3
D/4
A, B
C
D, E, F,
G, H, I
Events,
Patterns &
Trends
Persons
Appears Individually Eligible for National Register and/or California Register: Yes California Historic Resource Status Codes: 5S1, 3S, 3CS Evaluation Notes: - See Continuation Sheet 7 for updated historical statement of significance
Architecture
& Design
Information
Potential
Not found to be eligible under these criteria during the course of this survey.
Not found to be eligible under these criteria during the course of this survey.
Eligible for the Pacific Grove HRI, and appears eligible for listing on the California Register/National Register. Significant for Shingle design expressed by intact stylistic features, forms and/or construction methods. Good example of type and/or style from Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903-1926) development period and retains historic integrity.
Properties were not evaluated for significance under these criteria as part of this survey.
References: Page & Turnbull. City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement. Prepared for City of Pacific Grove, CA.
Approved by City Council October 19, 2011.
DPR523L (1/95) *Required Information
PGCC 1-17-24
*NRHP Status Code
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California Χ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name: N/A
B2. Common Name: N/A
B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: Shingle
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The Hermle & Collins home was built in 1926. According to the building permit petition (see Appendix III, Figure 1), the original residence was a one-story house with a shingle roof atop a cement foundation. The 1926 home consisted of four rooms, one bathroom, and a fireplace with a brick chimney. Two years later a valuation report of the Hermle & Collins home was completed on February 21, 1928 (see Appendix III, Figure 2). The report indicates that the home was in “good condition.” The house was measured as 24’ x 30’ feet whereas the carriage port was 10’ x 16’. No further documentation at the Pacific Grove Planning Division associated with the property appears until 1952 (see Appendix III, Figure 3).
According to a building permit (no. 5695) dated November 29, 1952, the property owner petitioned to add an 11’ x 18’ concrete floor in the garage port. The addition was estimated to cost $200. Historical research for the period between 1952 and 1985 did not identify the building construction of the Hermle-Collins’s home. 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 III, Figure 4). This was completed by Larkin Electric. The half-story dormer on the rear of the residence constitutes a more recent, circa the 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. *B7. Moved? ⊗No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: Theme Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903-1926) Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
See Continuation Sheet
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
See - See Continuation Sheet 11
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator:
*Date of Evaluation:
PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
Page of __4 of 13___
Updated Description
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 II, 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.
Exterior - West (Front) Facade
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, variably-sized, 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.
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 multi-pane window piercing is in turn identified with the second-floor dormer-like addition. Secondary piercings consist of two subfloor 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, PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
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 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 multi-pane 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.
Historical Context
History of Pacific Grove
Pacific Grove was originally part of the Mexican land grant or Rancho Punta de Los Pinos (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011a: 34). José Maria 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 consisted of approximately 2,667 acres and included the modern-day locations of Monterey Bay Aquarium (originally Point Aulones or “Abalone Point”) to Cypress Point in Pebble Beach (Digital Commons 2019a; Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2011a: 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. 2011a: 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 of 1889, Pacific Grove became incorporated (Pacific Grove Library 2019). During this year, the Southern Pacific Railway arrived in the city, prompting further development.
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 PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
Development of the City of Pacific Grove. More specifically, the period of Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 - 1926) for the buildings under study.
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, civic-related 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, one-story, 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).
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).
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.
Background for the Hermle & Collins House
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.
On May 12, 1926, a petition for building permit was submitted by Frank Ingerson (see Appendix III, 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.
PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
Two years later a valuation report of the Hermle & Collins home was completed on February 21, 1928 (see Appendix III, 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).
By 1952, a new property owner was identified with the home according to City of Pacific Grove building permit no. 5695 (see Appendix III, 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 Hermle-Collins 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 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 Hermle-Collins’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.).
Statement of Historical Significance
The Hermle & Collins residence appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance, and/or the California Register of Historical Resources, particularly given that the home was originally added to the Historic Resource Inventory for Pacific Grove in 1978 (HRI, Permit # 141).
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.
PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
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 appear to be eligible under Criterion C because the property embodies 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 Grovel 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.
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 appear to be eligible under Criterion 3 because the property embodies 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 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; PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
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; 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 Single 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 PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
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 of the southeast piercing, or French Door, entryway, and the addition of a second-story loft with dormer-like addition to the east half of the roofline, necessarily altered the original 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 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.
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 construed 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.
The Hermle & Collins home and guest unit do not retain their integrity of feeling because while the property is broadly associated with the residential development of Pacific Grove, it is in some respects, out of place within the neighborhood. 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 PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
are more modern. Therefore, the Hermle & Collins home does not contribute to the feeling of residential growth for the period of significance.
The Hermle & Collins home and guest unit do not retain the integrity of association because there is no direct link between the property and an event or person for which the property is significant.
References
Ancestry.com
2011a Monterey Peninsula Directory, 1976. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1521003235_0374- 00365?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Oug63&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=138353579 5 2011b Monterey Peninsula Directory, 1977. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1521003235_0363- 00406?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Oug58&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=139932343 1 2011c Monterey Peninsula Directory, 1982. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1521003235_0368- 00330?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Oug65&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=143023276 7 2019 Oakland Tribune; Publication Date: 30 Jan 1954. U.S., Newspapers.com Obituary Index, 1800s-current [database on-line].
Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/5226002:61843?tid=&pid=&queryId=b14caa84aa071074cd87d823bed11d97&_phsr c=YvS52&_phstart=successSource
2011a Pacific Grove, California, City Directory, 1947. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/255793560:2469?tid=&pid=&queryId=6f4fe95bfddcc9fecdc614268e2ce961&_phsr c=YvS50&_phstart=successSource
2011b Pacific Grove, California, City Directory, 1951. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Available online at:
https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/255793560:2469?tid=&pid=&queryId=6f4fe95bfddcc9fecdc614268e2ce961&_phsr c=YvS50&_phstart=successSource
2011b Pacific Grove, California, City Directory, 1953. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Available online at:
PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/255793560:2469?tid=&pid=&queryId=6f4fe95bfddcc9fecdc614268e2ce961&_phsr c=YvS50&_phstart=successSource
City of Pacific Grove
2011 Historic Resources Inventory Database. Available online at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/living/community-economic-development/planning/historicresources/historic-resources-inventory (accessed January 3, 2022). 2022 Parcel Viewer. Available online at:
https://citypacificgrove.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a9c7 6858b6604b9dbfc6ef30d56656b1 (accessed January 3, 2022). n.d. Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Existing Permits https://portal.iworq.net/PACIFICGROVE/permit/602/2512469 (accessed January 3, 2022).
n.d. Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Existing Permits https://portal.iworq.net/PACIFICGROVE/permit/602/2512472 (accessed January 3, 2022).
Digital Commons @ CSUMB
2019a "APN, Township-Range and Other Historical Land Data for Monterey County Ranchos - DRAFT" (2018). Maps, Plats, Sketches & Surveys. 503. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_cgb_14/503 (accessed July 16, 2019). 2019b "Punta de Pinos - Diseños, GLO No. 279, Monterey County, and associated historical documents" (2016). Individual Ranchos in Monterey and SLO Counties. 68. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_cgb_2_a/68 (accessed July 16, 2019).
Google Maps
2022 "111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950." Map. Google Maps.
Google, 3 January. 2022. Web. 3 Jan 2022.
McAlester, Virginia
2020 A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Knopf.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester
1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf.
Monterey County Historical Society (MCHS)
2019 “Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California.” Available online at:
http://mchsmuseum.com/pacificgrove.html (accessed July 16, 2019).
Pacific Gardens Chapel
2021 “Obituary of Mavis Boyd Drake 1935-2021.” Available online at:
https://pacificgardenschapel.com/tribute/details/206673/Mavis-Drake/obituary.htm l (accessed February 16, 2022).
PGCC 1-17-24
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date Continuation
Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 111 10th St (APN 006218001000)
Pacific Grove Library
2019 “Chronology of Pacific Grove History.” Available online at:
https://www.pacificgrovelibrary.org/community/local-history/chronology-pacific-grove-history (accessed July 16, 2019).
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
2011 City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of Pacific Grove. Available online at:
https://files.cityofpacificgrove.org/Document_Center/Departments/Community%20Development/ Housing/Historic%20Resources/PG%20HCS_2011.10.31-FINAL.pdf Zillow
n.d. “111 10th St, Pacific Grove, CA 93950.” Available online at:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/111-10th-St-Pacific-Grove-CA-93950/19323928_zpid/ (accessed January 3, 2022).
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 12 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Comment at Meetings of Legislative Bodies CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss permissible public comment at meetings of legislative bodies and consider providing direction to the City Attorney to return to the Council with a Resolution amending Council Policy 000-017.
DISCUSSION
On October 18, 2023, the City Council meeting was disrupted by remote speakers, via Zoom, who used the public comment period to voice hateful, racist speech that violated the permissible scope of public comment under the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”).
On November 15, 2023, the City Council directed the City Attorney to return with possible amendments to City Policy 000-017 regarding public comment from remote participants at meetings of legislative bodies. The City Council also voted at that meeting to allow for public comment via zoom.
This Agenda Report addresses the subject of what options are available to the City in regard to public comments and behavior during meetings of a legislative body that are disruptive or otherwise violate the permissible scope of public comment under the Brown Act.
A. Law Regarding Public Comment
1. A City Council Meeting is a Limited Public Forum
A meeting of a City Council or other local legislative body is a limited public forum for purposes of speech under the First Amendment. Legislative bodies may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on public comments at meetings of the legislative body, such as rules of decorum, the imposition of an agenda, reserving the forum for the intended purpose of the meeting, and prohibiting the public from speaking on matters not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
2. Permitted Scope of Public Comment Under the Brown Act The Brown Act gives the public a right to address the legislative body at regular and special meetings.
However, the scope of public comment is limited. During public comment for a particular agenda item, PGCC 1-17-24
the public comment must relate to that agenda item. (Government Code § 54954.3(a).) During the general public comment period, the public comment must be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (Government Code § 54954.3(a).)
3. Rules and Regulations of Legislative Body Regarding Public Comment The Brown Act allows the legislative body to adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that public comment remains within the permitted scope. (Government Code § 54954.3(b).) Article 13 of the City’s Charter directs the City Council to adopt rules for the conduct of its proceedings. Section
2.04.050(d)(1) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code provides that the City Council may adopt policies to ensure that the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council, and other legislative bodies of the City, on matters on the agenda and on matters not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
Pursuant to these rules, the City has adopted various policies, including Council Policy 000-17 (Order of Agenda for Council Meetings), copy attached to this Agenda Report. The City Council may amend these policies.
4. Council Can Limit Disruptive Speech
The City Council can take action when an individual or group engage in behavior which disrupts a City Council meeting as currently addressed in City Policy 000-017, summarized here. a. Definition of “Disrupting”
The Brown Act defines “disrupting” as “engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting,” including, but not limited to, failing to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by the legislative body or “[e]ngaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.” (Government Code § 54957.95(b).) The Brown Act defines “true threat of force” as “a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat.” (Government Code § 54957.95(b)(2).) b. Disruption by an Individual
The Brown Act outlines a process in which the presiding member of a legislative body may remove an individual for disrupting the meeting. First, the presiding member of the legislative body must warn the offending individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting, and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. (Gov. Code, § 54957.95(a)(2).) If the individual does not promptly cease their disruptive behavior, the presiding member may order the individual’s removal. (Government Code, § 54957.95(a)(2).) If an individual engages in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force, they can be removed without a warning. (Government Code, § 54957.95(a)(2).) c. Disruption by a Group
If a public meeting is “willfully interrupted” by groups of individuals such that the “orderly conduct” of the meeting becomes unfeasible, the Brown Act allows the legislative body to remove the individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting. (Government Code, § 54957.9.) If order cannot be restored after removing the offending individuals, the legislative body may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. (Government Code, § 54957.9.)
PGCC 1-17-24
The legislative body may only consider matters appearing on the agenda during such a session. (Government Code, § 54957.9.) Representatives of the press must be allowed to attend this session unless they participated in the disturbance. (Government. Code, § 54957.9.) The legislative body may establish a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals who were not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting. (Government Code, § 54957.9.) Additionally, any person who willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code, § 403.)
5. Council Cannot Prohibit Criticism
The legislative body may not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Government Code § 54954.3(c); Pacific Grove Municipal Code section 2.04.050(d)(2)
B. Options Regarding Public Comment
1. Add Statement to Agenda
The City can add a statement to its Agendas that describes the scope of public comment allowed under the Brown Act. Sample statement reads as follows:
“Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.” As noted above, the legislative body may not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Therefore, speakers who present comments which constitute such criticism should not be muted.
2. Require Pre-Registration by Remote Speakers
There is a long-standing rule under the Brown Act that registration may not be required for in-person participation at public meetings. (Government Code § 54953.3.) However, recognizing the practical considerations of hosting meetings through online third-party platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic, the legislature recently amended the Brown Act to require individuals to register for public comment before being allowed to comment where the body uses a third-party platform (i.e., Zoom) for the meeting.
The Brown Act now provides that “an individual desiring to provide public comment through the use of an internet website, or other online platform, not under the control of the local legislative body, that requires registration to log in to a teleconference may be required to register as required by the third-party internet website or online platform to participate.” (Government. Code § 54953(e)(1)(D), (f)(1)(F).)
If the City elects to implement a pre-registration system that requests information beyond what is required to register with the third-party platform, that pre-registration system should remain voluntary.
PGCC 1-17-24
For example, the Coastal Commission has a pre-registration process entailing a series of questions which potentially go beyond what is required by Zoom for a speaker to register (e.g., campaign contributions information). However, Coastal Commission’s pre-registration procedure is largely voluntary.
The California Coastal Commission has virtual hearing procedures and public participation rules that “strongly encourage” anyone wishing to speak to submit a request form by 5:00 pm the day before the hearing item to assist with meeting management. The Coastal Commission will accept a request to speak the day of a hearing item. Of note, the California Coastal Commission is not governed by the Brown Act but by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which covers all State boards and commissions. The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act contains similar rules to the Brown Act, such as allowing registration to the extent the online platform requires it. (See Government Code §§ 11123.2, 11124.)
Therefore, the City could require pre-registration for remote participants, to the extent it is required by the third-party platform, while not requiring in-person speakers to register. Any required pre-registration for remote participation must be limited to the information required by the third-party platform. If the City desires to implement a pre-registration process for remote attendance that requires information above and beyond what is required by the third-party platform, the pre-registration process should remain voluntary.
3. Mute Remote Speaker(s)
The City has the option to mute a remote speaker who is either disrupting the meeting or speaking beyond the scope of permissible public comment under the Brown Act. If a speaker offers public comment violating the Brown Act in regard to permissible public comment, then the Mayor can ask whoever is in charge of the remote video platform to mute the speaker. The Mayor may then give a verbal reminder of the scope of public comment permitted under the Brown Act and refer to the statement in the Agenda, and then move to the next speaker.
There is a distinction between muting speakers and the removal provisions of the Brown Act for disruptive behavior based on the fact that a muted speaker has not been removed from the meeting. A muted speaker can still observe the meeting and listen to the meeting, but cannot speak any further at the meeting based on their violation of the Brown Act requirements regarding the permitted scope of public comment.
4. Implement a Time Delay
In radio and television, a time delay or a broadcast delay is an intentional delay when broadcasting live material. Such delays are used in radio and television to prevent mistakes or unacceptable content, usually profanity or obscenity, from being broadcast, in order to avoid FCC penalties.
Instituting a time delay for an official two-way teleconference of the public meeting may violate the Brown Act, as the public would no longer be attending the meeting at the same time as the in-person events, or be able to interact with the legislative body in real time. (See Gov. Code, §§ 54952.2, 54953.8(a)(3)(C).)
However, the City could consider implementing a time delay for a one-way broadcast or webcast of the public meeting. If the City elects to implement a time delay and edit any footage, it will need to retain an unedited version of the footage as its official public record, subject to inspection under the Public Records Act. Whether or not implementing a time delay is technologically feasible for the City would PGCC 1-17-24
need to be addressed with a technology consultant.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Council Policy 000-017
PGCC 1-17-24
City of Pacific Grove
Council Policy
Subject Policy Effective Date Page
Order of Agenda for Council
Meetings 000-17 December 20, 2017 Page 1 of 4
A. Council meeting agendas are designed to facilitate the orderly conduct of City business, provide adequate time for the City Council to make informed, deliberative decisions, and provide members of the public an opportunity to present information to the City Council on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City.
B. This policy establishes the general practice to be followed with respect to the management of agenda items before the City Council. This policy shall not be construed to limit or impair rights of the public as set forth in the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Public Records Act, or any other provision of law.
C. In the development of a specific meeting’s agenda, the City Manager may adjust this order, when warranted. The Mayor and Council may also adjust the order in which matters are considered at the meeting. Deviation from the order of the agenda set in this policy, by itself, shall not provide a basis to reverse or invalidate any action of the City Council.
D. The standard order of the City Council agenda shall be as follows:
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
1. Approval of the Agenda
Councilmembers shall have an opportunity to request changes to the order of items, to postpone items to a future meeting, or to add new matters in accord with the emergency or urgency requirements set forth in the Government Code.
2. Presentations
Presentations shall be made on behalf of the City to persons or organizations, and/or brief presentations (not to exceed 5 minutes, each) made to the Council by others upon approval of the City Manager. Presentations shall neither receive Council action nor provide a reason for Council debate. Council may ask brief questions or refer matters to staff for consideration on a future agenda.
3. Council and Staff Announcements
Announcements shall be limited to City-related items and shall neither receive Council action nor provide a reason for Council debate. Council may ask brief questions or refer matters to staff for consideration on a future agenda.
PGCC 1-17-24
Report out of any closed session held prior to the Regular meeting will be provided as the first announcement.
4. Public Comment
These are comments from the public on matters that are on the agenda (including the Consent Agenda) as well as for matters not on the agenda during General Public Comment which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City.
Persons who wish to address the Council shall use the microphone and are asked to state their name. It is helpful if speakers also indicate the subject matter of their comments. (Note: Even if a speaker refuses to state his or her name or the subject matter of the comment, the speaker shall not be denied the right to speak.) Accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities.
Public comment shall be limited to three minutes per speaker for each item on the Agenda.
For General Public Comment, each speaker shall be limited to three minutes.
In the discretion of the Mayor, the length of the public comment on an item on the Agenda may be reduced to lower than three minutes when appropriate based on the number of speakers for an item and/or the Mayor may limit the total time for public comment on an item on the Agenda.
Communication to the Council under General Public Comment will be received without comment while the public comment period is open. When public comment during General Public Comment Communications is closed, questions from the public may be referred to staff for a brief response.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3 (c), the City Council shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9, in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible, and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the Mayor may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. After the meeting room has been cleared, the Mayor may readmit an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.95, the Mayor may cause the removal of any individual for disrupting the meeting subject to the following rules:
(1) Prior to removing an individual, the Mayor shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior PGCC 1-17-24
may result in their removal.
(2) The Mayor may then cause the removal of the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior.
(3) “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, one of the following:
(A) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to Section 54954.3 or any other law. (B) Engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force. (4) “True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat.
(5) If there has been a use of force or a true threat of force, there is no obligation for the Mayor to provide a warning to the individual before causing the individual to be removed from the meeting.
Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and noncontroversial matters, and may include action on resolutions and second readings of ordinances, provided no public comment is anticipated on those items. The purpose of the Consent Agenda is to make efficient use of available time by considering all routine and non-controversial items under one motion. The Consent Agenda is structured so that any Councilmember, staff, or the public may pull an item for discussion or questions.
A single vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed.
Councilmembers may notify the City Clerk if they want a specific vote or abstention recorded as to any individual item.
The standard elements of the Consent Agenda are:
5. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes
6. Resolutions
7. Ordinances
8. Reports – Information Only
PGCC 1-17-24
9. Reports – Requiring Action
10. Meeting Minutes of Commissions, Boards, and Committees When a Councilmember wishes to remove an item the Councilmember will discuss his/her question(s) with staff prior to the meeting in order for staff to research the answer(s), which shall be provided ahead of time to all members (e.g., in the blue folders).
The Mayor will first ask the members of the Council, then members of the public if anyone wants to pull an item from consent. The person pulling the item will simply state the item number and subject.
Unless a specific item is pulled for discussion, the Council shall ordinarily approve all action items or recommendations on the entire Consent Agenda under a single motion.
Council’s vote to approve the Consent Agenda is a direction to staff to proceed with each action as recommended.
Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
The Council shall separately consider and act on each item removed from the Consent Agenda. Such items shall be heard in their normal place on the Regular Agenda. That placement will be noted on each consent item. The discussion format for those items will follow the protocol for the Regular Agenda.
Regular Agenda
The protocol for deliberation on regular agenda items is:
1) The agenda report is presented by staff or other person who prepared the report. The report can be concise yet sufficient to establish context and key facts for the item. 2) Public comment is received, then closed.
3) Council deliberates and takes action as appropriate for the item This protocol explicitly omits the practice of clarifying questions from council prior to opening for public comment. Councilmembers can ask for clarification prior to the Council meeting and can also ask questions during the council deliberation phase.
11. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing agenda includes matters for which a public hearing notice was posted or published and for which public comment is anticipated.
12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business
The Unfinished Business agenda shall consist of matters that return to the Council for action, the same matter having been considered at or continued from a prior meeting or are updates or actions for long term and ongoing topics.
PGCC 1-17-24
13. New Business
The New Business agenda shall consist of matters not previously considered by the Council.
14. Full Presentations
Presentations under this item are those that may exceed five minutes and are made to the Council upon invitation of the Mayor or City Manager. Presentations shall neither receive Council action nor provide a reason for Council debate. Council may ask brief questions or refer matters to staff for consideration on a future agenda.
15. Closed Sessions (if required)
Closed Sessions are held in compliance with the Brown Act. The specific time for any Closed Session may be set at other times at the convenience of Council. The Council may adjourn to Closed Session on any other agenda item if authorized by law, upon advice of the City Attorney.
16. Public Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session This announcement shall immediately follow any Closed Session.
Adjournment
E. Whenever practical, closed session items are best addressed during a special meeting prior to a regular meeting, as a convenience to the public, beginning at 5:00 pm.
F. All agenda reports recommending Council action shall include the following: title, recommendation, background, justification, and financial impact. Closed session agenda reports shall be confidential pursuant to California Government Code 54963 and PGMC §2.04.080.
Adopted May 2, 2001 - Resolution No.1-025
Amended June 3, 2009 - Resolution No. 9-021
Amended February 3, 2010 - Resolution No.10-014
Amended September 1, 2010 - Resolution No.10-068
Amended November 17, 2010 - Resolution No.10-099
Amended February 2, 2011 - Resolution No. 11-008
Amended January 20, 2016 - by motion of Council
Amended December 20, 2017 - Resolution No. 17-032
Amended September 1, 2021 - Resolution 21-028
Amended February 1, 2023 – by Minute Order
PGCC 1-17-24
Agenda No. 13 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nick Smith, Mayor Pro Tem
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Direct to City Attorney to return to the City Council with an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 or other actions related to this Agenda item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to direct the City Attorney to return to the Council with an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 or other actions related to this Agenda item.
DISCUSSION
A. Current Version of Section 2.04.050
This item will include a discussion of proposed amendments to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section
2.04.050 which currently reads as follows:
“2.04.050 Agenda and consideration of unlisted matters. a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular and special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting. (b) Emergency Meetings. Agendas for emergency situations as defined by Section 54956.5 of the California Government Code shall comply with noticing prescribed in Section 54956.5. (c) Request. Any councilmember may place items on the agenda by requesting the city manager to do so by 12:00 noon on Wednesday of the week preceding a regular council meeting, and three days in advance of any special meeting, except that special meetings called during any meeting of the council shall have those items on the agenda for which request has been made in open council meeting without further request. The city manager may also place items on the agenda which he or she deems of interest to the council.
(d) Public Comment.
(1) The city council may adopt a policy or policies to ensure that the public will be provided an PGCC 1-17-24
opportunity to address the city council, and other legislative bodies of the city, on matters on the agenda and on matters not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
(2) The city council, and other legislative bodies of the city, shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the city council and other legislative bodies of the city.
(e) Minutes shall be prepared following all council meetings and shall provide a record of when and where a meeting took place, who was present, type of meeting, what was considered, and any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(c)(2).
(f) Reportable actions taken by council in closed session shall be reported when council next convenes in open session in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. [Ord. 23-001 § 2, 2023; Ord. 21-025 § 2, 2021; Ord. 01-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 1953 N.S. § 2, 1994; Ord. 1832 N.S. § 2, 1992; Ord. 1812 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1806 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1774 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1556 N.S. § 1, 1986; Ord. 1493 N.S., 1985; Ord. 1338 N.S. § 1, 1983; Ord. 1101 N.S. § 1, 1979; Ord. 1047 N.S. § 1, 1978; Ord. 920 N.S. § 1, 1977; Ord. 847 N.S. § 1, 1975; Ord. 541 N.S., 1966].”
B. Proposed Amendments to Section 2.04.050
1. Proposed amendment to Section 2.04.050 (a)
Revise Section 2.04.050 (a) to add the underlined text
“(a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular council meeting and not less than 24 hours before any special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting.”
2. Proposed Amendment to Section 2.04.050 (c)
Replace Section 2.04.050. (c) in its entirety to read as follows:
“(c) A Councilmember may request an item be placed on a future City Council agenda and that request must be made only at a City Council meeting and agreed upon by at least two other City Councilmembers at that City Council meeting. The discussion at the Council meeting will be limited to whether the item should be added to a future City Council agenda and may not include a discussion of the merits of the proposed agenda item. If the item is added to a future City Council agenda, then the Councilmember who requested the item shall prepare the Agenda Report with the assistance of the City Manager. These requirements for adding an item to a future City Council agenda also apply to the Mayor except that the Mayor, or a majority of the Council, may call a special meeting and include items on the agenda for that special meeting.”
OPTIONS
Other actions as directed by the City Council related to this agenda item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
PGCC 1-17-24
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
PGCC 1-17-24