CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, April 3, 2024, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.
PACIFIC GROVE MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.
PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL EVEN IF THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING ZOOM.
THE CITY WILL DO ITS BEST TO RESOLVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Comments from the public will not receive Council action. Comments must deal with matters on the Closed Session agenda and will be limited to three minutes
1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
B. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Section 54956.8) Regarding M1W Pump Station Electrical Equipment Relocation
Locations: City of Pacific Grove, 77 Asilomar, Golf Course and City of Pacific Grove, Esplanade Park
Agency Negotiation: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Attorney Negotiating Parties: Monterey One Water
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
C. Public Employment Pursuant to Government Code §54957 Title: City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, April 3, 2024, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber -- City Hall -- 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.
Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.
Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.
PA C IFIC G R O V E C O U N C IL ME E T IN G S A R E C O N D U C T E D IN PE R SO N A T C IT Y H A L L C O U N C IL C H A MB E R A N D V IR T U A L L Y .
PL E A SE N O T E T H E ME E T IN G W IL L PR O C E E D A S N O R MA L E V E N IF T H E R E A R E T E C H N IC A L D IFFIC U L T IE S A C C E SSIN G Z O O M.
T H E C IT Y W IL L D O IT S B E ST T O R E SO L V E A N Y T E C H N IC A L ISSU E S A S Q U IC K L Y A S PO SSIB L E .
T H E PU B L IC MA Y A L SO V IE W T H E ME E T IN G O N PE N IN SU L A C H A N N E L 25.
JO IN T H E Z O O M W E B IN A R T O PA R T IC IPA T E L IV E A T :
https://w w w .cityofpacificgrove.org/Z oom_C C
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Smith
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: National Library Week PG 8
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Mayor's Proclamation: National Community Development Week PG 10 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Mayor's Proclamation: Fair Housing Month PG 12
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Fair Housing Presentation by Echo Fair Housing Coordinator Angie Watson-Hajjem PG 14 Reference: Echo Fair Housing Coordinator Angie Watson-Hajjem Recommended Action: Receive presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
B. Other
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council's consideration of such items at the time such items are called. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of the March 16, 2024 City Council Special Closed Session Meeting PG 36 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the March 20, 2024, Closed Session and Regular Meetings PG 38 Reference: Staphany Arriola
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Second Reading of Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter (City Councilmember Inquiry Authority) PG 49 Reference: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager and Special Counsel Jenica Maldonado, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter (City Councilmember Inquiry Authority)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS -- INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 56
Reference: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
Recommended Action:
1. Receive the report.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS -- REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Appointment to Architectural Review Board PG 57
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointment of D. Huff to Architectural Review Board ending January 31, 2026.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 B. Resolution Approving City Council Inquiry Policy PG 59 Reference: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution Approving City Council Inquiry Authority and Directing the City Manager to Implement the Policy
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Architectural Review Board Minutes: February 13, 2024 PG 65 Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner & Economic Development Coordinator Recommended Action: Receive minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 B. Beautification and Natural Resources Committee Minutes: May through October 2023 PG 71 R
R
e
e
f
c
e
o
re
m
en
m
ce
e
e:
n d
G
e
e
d
orAge
ct
F
iouo
e
n
r
:
st,ReE
c
n
e
v
i
i
v
r
e
on
m
mine
u
n
t
t
e
a
s
l
.
Program Manager
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent's position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter.
A. First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule PG 94 Reference: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
Recommended Action:
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
3. Introduce and hold a first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule; and approve the amendment; and
4. Direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Chinese Pavilion Project PG 98
Reference: Amy Colony, Management Analyst
Recommended Action:
1. Receive update and authorize the City Manager to proceed with Elmarie Dyke Open Space as the preferred location for the Chinese Pavilion project and include it as a CIP project for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.
2. Alternative, take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Special Event Calendar FY 2023-2024 Late Additions
Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
Recommended Action:
1. Approve Enchanted Forest as a Full Cost Recovery Special Event for inclusion in the FY 2023-2024 Special Events Calendar
2. Approve the first date of the EDC Concert Series as City Sponsored Special Event for inclusion in the FY 2023-2024 Special Events Calendar
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. SR
p
e
e
f
c
e
i
r
a
e
l nEcv
e
e
: ntKa
Ctia
e
leCn
l
d
a
a
r
r
k,
FRY e2
cr0e
2 at4i
-
o
2 n
02M5
anager
Recommended Action:
1. Approve the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Special Events Calendar PG 123
2. Approve 7 proposed events as Special Events to be billed at full cost recovery rates
3. Approve 23 proposed special events as City Sponsored Events and waive the fees for City staff support and equipment/facility usage
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. American Tin Cannery Project and Comment by City to the California Coastal Commission.
Reference: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager PG 136 Recommended Action: Direct the Mayor to provide written comment to the California Coastal Commission in support of the revised ATC Project or other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Ballot Measure(s) to Amend PGMC 23.45 and PGMC 6.11 PG 228 Reference: Luke Coletti, Councilmember
Recommended Action: Direct the City Manager to return to the Council with the documents necessary to place a measure(s) on the November 5, 2024, ballot asking the voters to amend Measure B (PGMC
23.45) and Measure C (PGMC 6.11) to implement the following:
1. Amend PGMC 23.45 to: (1) provide a definition for "timeshare" or "timeshare project," including those fractional interest uses marketed, sold, and managed as timeshares, and (2) allow the City Council to make any future amendments to the definition via Council Ordinance.
2. Amend (or rescind) PGMC 6.11 in order to be consistent with: (1) the proposed voter-adopted definition(s), and (2) the City's transient occupancy tax rate (i.e., existing timeshare projects (there are two) shall be taxed at the same rate as hotels/motels per PGMC 6.09).
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency designated representative: City Attorney Brian Pierik Employee: City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.
Agenda No. 2 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: National Library Week
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.
Attachments
Library Week Proclamation
City of Pacific Grove
National Library Week 2024
WHEREAS, today's libraries are not just about books but what libraries do with and for their community;
WHEREAS, libraries and librarians build strong communities through regularly scheduled events and programs;
WHEREAS, libraries have long served as trusted and treasured institutions where people of all backgrounds can be together and connect;
WHEREAS, libraries and librarians empower their communities to make informed decisions by providing free access to information;
WHEREAS, libraries support democracy and effect social change through their commitment to provide equitable access to information for all library users regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic status; WHEREAS, the people of Pacific Grove have a long tradition of generously supporting their public and school libraries;
WHEREAS, libraries of all types are at the heart of cities, towns, schools, and campuses NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that I, Bill Peake, Mayor of the City of Pacific Grove, proclaim April 7-13, 2024, National Library Week in Pacific Grove. I encourage all residents of our City to visit their library this week, explore what is new there, attend an event or program, and engage with your librarians.
________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove
Agenda No. 2 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: National Community Development Week CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.
Attachments
National Community Development Week
Mayor's Proclamation
National Community Development Week
April 1 – April 5, 2024
WHEREAS, 2024 marks the 50th anniversary of the federally funded Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The CDBG Program has operated since 1974 to provide local governments with the resources required to primarily meet the needs of low-and moderate-income persons by funding public infrastructure, economic development, and housing programs in this community; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Program has made a significant impact in our community by providing the City of Pacific Grove with important and flexible assistance to meet the needs of low-and moderateincome residents including older adults and individuals with disability-related needs by funding sewer and home rehabilitation projects. Funding these projects enables low-and moderate-income residents to age in place and live in decent, safe, and sanitary housing.
WHEREAS, Pacific Grove recognizes that the CDBG program is a partnership of federal, state and local government with community efforts. The CDBG program thrives on the dedication and commitment of our combined efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bill Peake, Mayor of Pacific Grove, California, hereby proclaim the week of April 1st through 5th, 2024 as "NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK", giving a special thanks and appreciation to all participants whose tireless efforts to the community, inclusive of its low-and moderate-income residents help ensure the quality and effectiveness of the CDBG Program. ______________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove
Agenda No. 2 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: Fair Housing Month
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.
Attachments
Fair Housing Month Proclamation
Mayor’s Proclamation
Fair Housing Month
April 2024
WHEREAS, April 2024 marks the 56th Anniversary of the passage of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the Federal Fair Housing Act. The City of Pacific Grove celebrates the Month of April as the anniversary of the establishment of the Fair Housing Act. This Act outlines a national policy of fair housing for all individuals who live in the United States; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and national origin and commits recipients of federal funding to affirmatively further fair housing in their communities; and WHEREAS, the State Fair Housing Act further protects individuals from discrimination based on California’s protected categories which include the federally protected categories mentioned above as well as the following additional categories: ancestry, genetic information, marital status, source of income (including the use of government rental assistance such as a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher), military or veteran status, age, or any arbitrary reason; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove also prohibits discrimination against renting or buying a home, receiving a mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or engaging in other housing related activities; and
WHEREAS, Fair Housing is essential to the ethical commitment of the City of Pacific Grove and is crucial to serving our community. We at the City of Pacific Grove recognize the month of April as Fair Housing Month and promote an inclusive community devoted to fair housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bill Peake, Mayor of Pacific Grove, California, hereby proclaim the month of April 2024 as “FAIR HOUSING MONTH” advocating for equal housing opportunities for all residents and prospective residents of the City of Pacific Grove. Together, we will make our communities places where our rights are respected and where every one of us can enjoy a safe place to call home.
______________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove
Agenda No. 2 D
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: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Fair Housing Presentation by Echo Fair Housing Coordinator Angie Watson-Hajjem CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.
Attachments
PPT
Agenda No. 5 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the March 16, 2024 City Council Special Closed Session Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 3-16-24
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday Saturday, March 16, 2024, 8:45 A.M.
Council Chamber -- City Hall -- 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at
https://w w w .cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Absent: Councilmember Beck.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted 6-0-1, Councilmember Beck absent, to approve the agenda.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT O N CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment received.
1. Written Public Comment
A. Public Employment, (Government Code § 54957)
Title: City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to closed session. Council adjourned the closed session meeting at 3:40 p.m. A report of any action will be provided at the next regular meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by Interim City Manager Pro Tempore: _________________________Date_________________ DRAFT
Agenda No. 5 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst (Confidential) MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the March 20, 2024, Closed Session and Regular Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 3-20-24
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, March 20, 2024, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber -- City Hall -- 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Appearing Telephonically Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953:
Councilmember Poduri
2500 North Hollywood Way
Burbank, CA 91505
PACIFIC GROVE MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Management Analyst Arriola conducted the roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio and, McDonnell. Present via Zoom: Councilmember Poduri. Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Councilmember Coletti arrived at approximately 5:05 and 5:10 p.m. respectively. Absent: Councilmember Beck.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Amelio and seconded by McDonnell, Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0-3, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmember Amelio and McDonnell.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Beck and Coletti.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment received.
1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
B. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) DRAFT
2 City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Employee Organization: General Employees Association
C. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Section 54956.8) Regarding M1W Pump Station Electrical Equipment Relocation
Locations: City of Pacific Grove, 77 Asilomar, Golf Course and City of Pacific Grove, Esplanade Park Agency Negotiation: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Attorney; Negotiating Parties:
Monterey One Water Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment DRAFT
3 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, March 20, 2024, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber -- City Hall -- 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Appearing Telephonically Pursuant to Government Code 54953:
Councilmember Poduri
2500 North Hollywood Way
Burbank, CA 91505
PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY .
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Management Analyst Arriola conducted the roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, and McDonnell. Present via Zoom: Councilmember Poduri. Absent: Councilmember Beck.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Peake led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda and continuing item 11C to a date uncertain. Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
2. PRESENTATIONS
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Tori Hannah, Administrative Services DRAFT
4 Director/Assistant City Manager, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Katy Suttorp, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
Employee Organization: General Employees Association
Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Section 54956.8) Regarding M1W Pump Station Electrical Equipment Relocation
Locations: City of Pacific Grove, 77 Asilomar, Golf Course and City of Pacific Grove, Esplanade Park
Agency Negotiation: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Attorney; Negotiating Parties:
Monterey One Water Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment City Attorney Brian Pierik reported that no action was taken as to all three items.
B. Council and staff made general comments.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Mike Durant, Sally Moore, Mike Gibbs, Carmelita Garcia, Adam De Boor, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, Marsha, and Ximena Waissbluth.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 6B was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Minutes of the March 6, 2024 Regular Meeting
Action: Approved minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Adoption of Resolutions Adoption of Resolutions Honoring Awardees of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Action: Adopted Resolutions Honoring Mike Marotta Jr. (24-006), Mary Adams (24-007), Clarissa Rowe (24-008), Ron Johnson (24-009) and the Business of the Year Monterey F.C (24-010).
DRAFT
5 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Action: Motion to adopt Resolution Approving revised Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook or take other action related to this item.
CEQ A : Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
7. ORDINANCES
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Regarding Order of Agenda
Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 24-004 Amending Section 2.04.050 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Regarding Order of Agenda CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS -- INFORMATION ONLY
A. Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Action: Received the city's Housing Element Annual Progress Report (HE APR) for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. 2023 Draft General Plan Annual Progress Report
Action: Received the 2023 Draft General Plan Annual Progress Report required by the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Core Revenue Report for February
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 D. February 2024 Check Register.
Action: Received the check register.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. 2024 League of California Cities Mayor and Council Members Academy Attendance Action: Received report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS -- REQUIRING ACTION
A. 2024 Ballot Initiative No. 21-0042A1
Action: Directed Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager, to assess the potential financial impact on the City of November 2024 statewide ballot Initiative No. 21-0042A1.
DRAFT
6 CEQ A: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSION S, BOARDS, AND CO MMITTEES A. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Minutes: February 12, 2024 Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 B. Traffic Safety Commission Minutes: January 24, 2024
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
*************************
6.B. Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer Action: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved, and Councilmember Coletti seconded to adopt a resolution approving the revised Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook.
Action: Councilmember McDonnell requested a friendly amendment adding Historic Context Statement, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and the Historic Resources Inventory to Section 9. Reference Materials.
Action: Both the maker of the motion and the seconder (Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Councilmember Coletti, respectively) approved the friendly amendment.
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of Architectural Permit (AP), Use Permit (UP) and Variance (VAR) 22-0284, 773-775 Ocean View Blvd, Pacific Grove (APN 006-071-007); Continued from the City Council Regular Meetings on November 1, 2023, and February 21, 2024.
Mayor Peake announced the public hearing was closed and this was a continuance from November, 2023.
Ex parte communication was declared by Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, and McDonnell.
DRAFT
7 Community Development Director Karen Vaughn presented.
Appellant Marion Moe had 5 minutes for presentation.
Applicant’s representatives Tony Lombardo and Jeanne Byrne had 5 minutes for presentation.
Public comment was received from Anthony Ciani and Lisa Ciani.
Applicant’s Representative Anthony Lombardo was allowed 2 minutes for rebuttal.
Appellant declined to rebuttal.
The matter was returned to Council for questions and dialogue.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, City Council denied the appeal and approved the project as revised (Architectural Permit and Variance 22-0284), subject to the findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities B. First Reading of Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter (City Councilmember Inquiry Authority) Public comment received from Marsha, Lisa Ciani, Adam De Boor, and Laura Abihider.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce an Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter (City Councilmember Inquiry Authority);
3. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
Motion carried 4-2-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: Councilmembers Amelio, and Poduri.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT
8 C. First Reading of Ordinance Amending Section 2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Residency Requirement for City Manager During the Approval of the Agenda, this item was tabled to a date uncertain.
Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance and introduce an Ordinance Amending Section
2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Residency Requirement for City Manager
3. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Skatepark Project -- City Hall Parking Lot This item continued from 2/14/2024.
Public comment received from unnamed speaker, Randy, unnamed speaker, James Ashley, Keenan, Milo, Kirby Gary, Amber Acosta, Anthony Ciani, Colleen Ingram, Alex White and Marsha.
Action: Upon motion by Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted to direct staff to continue with this project planning for the parking lot as discussed.
Motion failed 4-2-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Amelio and Poduri.
NOES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Coletti and McDonnell ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
Action: Council received report and provided direction.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Council took their break from 8:15 – 8:25 p.m.
B. Fire Station Bathroom & Shower Remodel project
Public comment received from Anthony Ciani.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to direct the City Manager to return with an additional funding allocation to allow for the construction of the project
Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT
9 13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Great Tide Pool Site Storm Damage Repairs
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani, and Anthony Ciani.
Action: Council directed the City Manager to proceed with Conceptual Design Option 2 - Interlocking Timber Steps.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Sewer Collection System Master Plan Projects 1, 6, & 9 Engineering No public comment received.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to authorize a contract with the Wallace Group in an amount not to exceed $1,769,097 for the engineering and construction management for Sewer Collection System Master Plan projects 1,6 &
9. Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Consider Transitioning from Six (6) to Four (4) Council Members Public comment received from Adam de Boor, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Marsha.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to direct the City Manager to return to the Council with the documents necessary to place a measure on the ballot reducing the Council's composition from six (6) to (4) members.
Motion carried 4-2-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Coletti, and McDonnell.
NOES: Councilmembers Amelio and Poduri.
ABSENT: Councilmember Beck.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
DRAFT
10 ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Staphany Arriola
Management Analyst
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by Interim City Manager Pro Tempore: _________________________Date_________________ DRAFT
Agenda No. 7 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Robert Perrault, Interim City Manager and Special Counsel Jenica Maldonado, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter (City Councilmember Inquiry Authority)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.110 to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Codify the Provisions of Article 21 of the City Charter (City Councilmember Inquiry Authority)
DISCUSSION
There were no changes between the first and second reading of this ordinance. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on March 28, 2024.
The Pacific Grove City Charter includes Article 21: Interference with or by City Manager. This Article provides in part that "[e]xcept for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager."
There are over 100 charter cities in the state of California. Approximately 64 have language similar to Pacific Grove's Article 21 in their charters. About 32 have similar language in their municipal code but not their charter.
Of those, four cities have specific content about the inquiry process in their municipal code. [1]
San Bernardino
offers a structure most similar to that of the proposed Ordinance, wherein there is both a charter provision and a clarifying municipal code provision. El Cajon also has both a charter provision and a municipal code provision, but their code section does not define charter terms in a manner similar to the proposed Ordinance.
Monterey County has twelve cities total, and six of those are charter cities. In addition to Pacific Grove, these cities are reflected below.
· King City has Municipal Code Section 2.08.080, which is similar to Article 21. · Marina has a basic exception for inquiry, similar to Pacific Grove's Article 21, at Marina Municipal Code Section 2.08.080.
· Monterey has no exception for inquiry at all.
· Salinas has Municipal Code section 2-02.01, which is also similar to Article 21. · Sand City has an inquiry carve-out in their municipal code, but they have also established an "advisory committee" to "maintain active involvement in the City's administration", and the committee is authorized to "work with the City Manager and department heads to implement the City Council's policy directions and to manage the City's affairs." This is codified at Sand City Municipal Code Section 2.50.080.
On December 6, 2023, the City Council discussed a proposed ordinance to codify in greater detail the Council's inquiry authority, as prescribed under the City Charter, Article 21 ("Proposed Ordinance"). At that meeting, the Council took action to make certain modifications to the draft ordinance and directed the City Manager to prepare a related council policy.
On February 14, 2024, the City Council again met to discuss the proposed ordinance. The City Manager brought a proposed council policy and proposed related revisions to the proposed ordinance itself after consulting with Department Directors and the City Attorney's Office and Special Counsel. After discussion, the Council approved the further proposed revisions to the ordinance and gave authority to pursue the first reading of the Proposed Ordinance at a future meeting.
Attachment 1 to this Agenda Report is the current Proposed Ordinance, now including the changes shown in Special Counsel Maldonado's February 14, 2024 PowerPoint Presentation.
The Policy will be brought back to the City Council by the City Manager at the meeting of the City Council which has the Second Reading of this Ordinance.
[1] La Quinta Municipal Code Section 2.08.070; San Bernardino Charter Section 3.06 and Municipal Code Section 2.58.050; Sunnyvale City Charter Section 807; and Truckee Municipal Code section 2.08.070.
OPTIONS
1. Approve Ordinance as proposed and direct City Attorney to take necessary actions to properly notice and schedule a second reading and adoption of Ordinance.
2. Take no action. This will result in no change to the Municipal Code.
3. Provide staff alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the Ordinance.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
1 ORDINANCE NO. 24-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ADDING SECTION 2.04.110 TO THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CODIFY THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CITY CHARTER FACTS
1. The City of Pacific Grove is a charter city organized under the constitution of the State of California.
2. Pacific Grove became a charter city on April 22, 1927. New Charters were adopted in 1955, 1969, and 1974.
3. The Pacific Grove City Charter, in Article 21, currently provides as follows: “Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall dictate or attempt to dictate, either directly or indirectly, the appointment of any person to office or employment by the City Manager, or in any manner interfere with the City Manager or prevent the City Manager from exercising his or her own judgment in the appointment of officers and employees in the administrative service. Except for the purpose of inquiry the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.”
4. The language of Article 21 has continuously appeared in the City Charter since the City’s first adopted Charter in 1927.
5. Article 21 allows direct contact with the administrative service for the purpose of inquiry.
The purpose of Article 21 is to define the lines of authority within city government, not to prohibit protected speech. Interpreting Article 21 to prohibit "orders" to members of the administrative service is a bright line consistent with the purpose of Article 21 and the First Amendment. “Council members “‘are entitled to speak as they please on matters vital to them; errors in judgment ... may be exposed, of course, but not through punishment for contempt for the expression.’” (See Levy v.
City of Santa Monica (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1262, quoting Wood v. Georgia (1962) 370 U.S. 375, 389.)
6. Council members have First Amendment protection when they comment individually, or respond to inquiries from the public, about the City's actions. Under the First Amendment, “‘legislators “are given the widest latitude to express their views” and there are no “stricter ‘free speech’ standards on [them] than on the general public.’” (See Levy v. City of Santa Monica (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261, quoting Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 76, 80.)
7. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 2 or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
8. The California Public Records Act, in Government Code Section 7921.305(a), currently provides as follows: “Notwithstanding the definition of ‘member of the public’ in Section 7920.515, an elected member or officer of any state or local agency is entitled to access to public records of that agency on the same basis as any other person. Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of elected members or officers to access public records permitted by law in the administration of their duties.”
9. The California Public Records Act, in Government Code Section 7921.310, currently provides as follows: “Notwithstanding Section 7921.305 or any other provision of law, when the members of a legislative body of a local agency are authorized to access a writing of the body or of the agency as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the local agency… shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which writing or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available.”
10. The Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), Title 2, Chapter 2.04 sets forth rules regarding Administration and City Government and addresses processes related to the City Council. The PGMC does not include a section addressing the inquiry authority of Council members, as provided under Article 21 of the City Charter.
11. Amending the Municipal Code to clarify the meaning of Article 21 and to authorize preparation of a city council policy establishing procedures and guidelines for submitting inquiries to members of the City’s administrative service is consistent with the City Charter, the California Public Records Act, the First Amendment, and related published case law; assists City elected officials in conducting oversight of the City Manager and City operations; and promotes clarity regarding Pacific Grove’s Council-Manager form of city government, as established under the City Charter.
12. This ordinance does not constitute a Project as that term is defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Facts.
The facts set forth above are true and correct and are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Pacific Grove Municipal Code to Add Section 2.04.110 The following Section shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code:
3 Section 2.04.110 Inquiry
(a) The following definitions shall be used only to interpret the City Council’s authority to make inquiries to the City’s administrative service under Article 21 of the City Charter and shall control for the purposes of this Section:
(1) “The administrative service” means officers and employees of the City who are under the City Manager’s direct supervision and control. Any inquiries regarding contract-related services shall be directed to the City Manager.
(2) “Inquiry” means a specific question from a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service which can be answered by furnishing information available from, or by providing, existing City records to the extent permitted by law, and which does not require a member of the administrative service to discuss or express an opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council, individual Council member(s), or the City Manager.
(3) “Orders” means commands, directions, or instructions to do something or not do something by a member of the Council, with or without an expectation that the individual will comply. (b) Pursuant to Article 21 of the City Charter, except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.
(c) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), members of Council are entitled to access public records on the same basis as any other person. A response to an inquiry which requests a City record shall be subject to the provisions of the CPRA in regard to records to be produced and timelines for production. When Council and its members are authorized to access a City record, as permitted by law in the administration of their duties, the City shall not discriminate between or among any of those members as to which record or portion thereof is made available or when it is made available. (d) An inquiry that communicates a grievance against the government of the City is protected by the First Amendment.
(e) Inquires may be responded to during normal business hours (excluding emergencies) in a manner consistent with the CPRA. If a council member does not receive a response to an inquiry from a member of the administrative service, nothing in this Code Section shall prevent the council member from 4 communicating with the City Manager concerning the inquiry, and nothing in this Code Section shall prevent the Council, acting as a body during a duly convened public meeting, from directing the City Manager to provide the outstanding information in response to the inquiry.
(f) The Council, acting as a body during a duly convened public meeting, may order the City Manager to furnish information or provide existing City records to the extent permitted by law, or direct the City Manager to create City records with the requested information to the extent permitted by law. Individual Council members may not make such orders of the City Manager. (g) The authority of a Council member to make inquiries under Article 21 of the Charter is limited to inquiries made in their official capacity as an elected official. Nothing in this Section prohibits a Council member from contacting the City in the normal course of business in their private capacity. (h) The City Manager and members of the administrative service are protected from retaliation that may result from an inquiry from a Council member to the extent provided under California law.
(i) The City Council may adopt a council policy for submitting inquiries to members of the administrative service provided such policy does not conflict or interfere with (1) the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, (2) the City Charter, (3) the California Public Records Act, or (4) the First Amendment, or any other local, state, or federal law.
SECTION 3. Implementation.
The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Interpretation.
This Ordinance shall be liberally construed to implement its purposes.
SECTION 5. Severability.
If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 5 more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. Effective Date.
In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following adoption on second reading by the City Council.
SECTION 7. No Sunset Date.
This ordinance shall have continuing effect and shall not expire.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS 3rd day of April, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
___________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
Agenda No. 8 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Housing Element Monthly Status Update
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive the report.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
On December 20, 2023, City Council approved the first amendment to the contract with Rincon Consultants, initiating the preparation of the Housing Element Update (HEU), along with related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Subsequently, City Staff and Rincon Consultants continued/commenced work and provided the second monthly progress report update to Council on March 6, 2024. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:
February 29, 2024: Internal Housing Element Team coordination meeting to discuss City Council direction to consider alternative sites and rezoning/upzoning to accommodate the necessary housing unit capacity. March 1 - March 8, 2024: Staff worked with Rincon to draft a Notice to Proceed on the out-of-scope work regarding a revised Sites Inventory following Council's direction on February 21, 2024, to seek alternative sites and/or methods to avoid the need for the three Unclassified sites accounting for 497 units (or 44%) of the City's 6th Cycle RHNA. March 4, 2024: Written public comment received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR throughout the 30-day public comment period on the scope of the EIR was combined, published to the city's Housing Element and CEQA webpages, and shared with Rincon. March 13, 2024: Rincon provided staff with an initial draft of the revised Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) policy for review. March 14, 2024: Internal Housing Element Team coordination meeting to discuss next steps for finding alternative sites and rezoning/upzoning to accommodate the necessary housing unit capacity. March 21, 2024: Internal Housing Element Team collaboration on potential alternative sites and rezoning/upzoning to accommodate the necessary housing unit capacity. Work on the EIR has been paused until a revised list of housing sites is identified and vetted through the Planning Commission and City Council in early summer.
Staff will provide a monthly status update to the Council throughout the process, leading to an adopted and certified Housing Element. For more information, please visit the Housing Element Webpage:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/community_development/housing/housing_element.php
OPTIONS
N/A - This is information only.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
Agenda No. 9 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Appointment to Architectural Review Board
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointment of D. Huff to Architectural Review Board ending January 31, 2026.
DISCUSSION
The appointment of D. Huff fills a vacancy on the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
City committees play a vital role in city government and provide opportunities for residents to become engaged in civic activities and work to improve local governance. We are very fortunate to have many highly qualified and talented residents willing to serve on City committees.
The term for Architectural Review Board members is 2 years.
Mayoral appointments to City committees must be confirmed by Council (Charter Article 26). Further regulations and policy regarding appointments can be found in PGMC Chapter 3.02 and Policy 000-5.
Unfortunately, an architect recently resigned from the ARB because state law doesn't allow a board member to represent their client before a board they are a member of. This may continue to be an issue in filling ARB vacancies with licensed professionals.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with this appointment.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Huff Application - Redacted
Agenda No. 9 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert Perrault, City Manager
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving City Council Inquiry Policy CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Approving City Council Inquiry Authority and Directing the City Manager to Implement the Policy
DISCUSSION
Article 21 of the City of Pacific Grove Charter provides the Council with the ability to make inquiries regarding City-related business and activities of those employees in the administrative service of the City. On December 6, 2023, the Council discussed a proposed ordinance to codify in greater detail the Council's authority, as prescribed under Article 21. Following Council discussion and public comment, the Council took action to make certain changes to the proposed ordinance and directed the City Manager to prepare a related Council policy to be used for the Council inquiry process.
On February 14, 2024, the City Council met to discuss the proposed ordinance. The City Manager, after consulting with City Department Directors and the City Attorney and Special Counsel, the City Manager brought a proposed council policy and proposed related revisions to the proposed ordinance. After Discussion, the Council approved further proposed revisions to the ordinance and gave authority to pursue the first reading of the ordinance. The City Manager was provided with direction to return to the Council with a policy that is based on the approved ordinance. The ordinance will be presented to the Council for final adoption at this meeting. The Council will then consider the Policy.
The process of Council member inquiry is essential to municipal governance. It enables the Council members to ask questions and seek information regarding City-related business from key City officials. Often times, this information is needed to assist the Council member in making decisions related to the operations of the City and to assist the Council with its oversight roll. The inquiry process can also be used by Council members to gain information on behalf of their constituents. The Policy is an implementing mechanism that assures that the Inquiry process and the retrieval of information can be carried out in an efficient, fair, and effective manner.
The attached resolution and the accompanying policy are ready for Council adoption.
OPTIONS
1. Adopt the Resolution approving the City Council Inquiry Policy and direct the City Manager to implement the City Policy
2. Direct the City Manager to make changes to the proposed resolution and or the policy and return the item at a later date.
3. Take no action at this time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no direct financial impact from adopting this resolution at this time. Future mpact will depend on the number of inquiries received from Council members and the staff resources necessary to complete the process.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Reso with Proposed Policy
RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY ENTITLED
“COUNCIL INQUIRY POLICY”
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove is a charter city organized under the constitution of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Grove became a charter city on April 22, 1927. New Charters were adopted in 1955, 1969 and 1974.
WHEREAS, the language of Article 21 has continuously appeared in the City Charter since the City’s first adopted Charter in 1927.
WHEEAS, the Pacific Grove City Charter, in Article 21, currently provides as follows:
“Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall dictate or attempt to dictate, either directly or indirectly, the appointment of any person to office or employment by the City Manager, or in any manner interfere with the City Manager or prevent the City Manager from exercising his or her own judgment in the appointment of officers and employees in the administrative service. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.”
WHEREAS, the language of Article 21 has continuously appeared in the City Charter since the City’s first adopted Charter in 1927.
WHEREAS, Article 21 Allows direct contact with the administrative service for the purpose of inquiry. The purpose of Article 21 is to define the lines of Authority within the Government.
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, the Council did introduce an Ordinance making changes to Section 2.04.110 of the Municipal Code to further clarify and define the process of inquiry and provided direction to the City manager to develop a City Council Policy to implement the provisions of2.04.110.
WHEREAS, the City Manager has drafted said Inquiry Policy and the Policy has subsequently been reviewed by the City Council at the Council meeting of April 3,2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The Council determines that each of the Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.
2. The Council adopts Resolution 24-xxx authorizing the Council Inquiry Policy.
3. The Council Inquiry Policy is hereby approved as attached to this Resolution, which by this reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.
4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 3rd day of April, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
City of Pacific Grove, California
City Council Policy
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page
Establishing Procedures For Council
Members To Make An Inquiry Pursuant To
Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section
2.04.110
TBD April 3, 2024 1 of 2
PURPOSE:
Article 21 of the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) Charter provides the Council with the ability of making inquiries regarding City-related business and activities of those employees in the administrative service of the City. The purpose of this policy is to provide practical guidance for Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.110 regarding “Inquiry Authority” and to ensure that Council members have the information needed by the Council to collectively make decisions. This policy aligns with the Council/ Manager form of government whereby the Council establishes policy and management implements the Council policy.
Administrative Service
Section 2.04.110, subdivision (a)(1) of the City Municipal Code defines the term “administrative service” as officers and employees of the City who are under the City Manager’s direct supervision and control. Any inquiries regarding contract-related services shall be directed to the City Manager.
Meaning of Inquiry
Section 2.04.110, subdivision (a)(2) of the City Municipal Code defines an inquiry as “a specific question from a member of the Council to a member of the administrative service which can be answered by furnishing information available from, or by providing, existing City records to the extent permitted by law, and which does not require a member of the administrative service to discuss or express an opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council, individual Council members(s), or the City Manager.”
Inquiries are requests for information that can be provided from non-privileged existing City records or existing information.
Non-privileged means a record that is not recognized as privileged or otherwise confidential by law. It is up to the City Attorney or their designee to determine whether a City record is privileged or otherwise confidential by law.
POLICY & PROCEDURE FOR INQUIRY
1. An inquiry shall be directed to any member of the administrative service in writing by email with a copy to the City Manager. Inquiries may be responded to within normal business hours (with the exception of emergency situations) in a manner otherwise consistent with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
2. Upon receipt of an inquiry, the member of the administrative service may provide the requesting Council member with a time estimate for the return of the requested information or may request that the City Manager respond to the inquiry on their behalf.
a. To the extent a member of the administrative service decides to respond to an inquiry and the inquiry seeks an existing City record that is properly disclosable under the CPRA, the timeline for a response will be consistent with the CPRA. b. To the extent a member of the administrative service decides to respond to an inquiry and the inquiry seeks information that can be conveyed verbally or by a short email response and not an existing City record, it shall be responded to within a reasonable
amount of time consistent with staff workloads. Staff may need to balance workloads, timelines, and resources, with lengthy, labor-intensive requests.
3. If the member of the administrative service decides not to provide the requested information, then they may inform the Council member or inform the City Manager who will inform the Council member.
4. If a Council member does not receive the information requested, the Council member may cause the subject of their inquiry to be agendized for discussion by the full Council for its consideration in a manner consistent with the Brown Act, the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, and City policies. The Council may, in its discretion, direct the City Manager to provide said
information.
5. The City Manager maintains the discretion to direct or order a member of the administrative service or any other City employee to perform a job duty or function relating to an inquiry from a Council member made under Section 2.04.110 of the Municipal Code or this policy.
Adopted ______________ - Resolution No. 24-XXX
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: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner/Economic Development Coordinator MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Architectural Review Board Minutes: February 13, 2024 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
February ARB Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Tuesday, February 13, 2024, 3:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Boyle called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Staff Liaison, Laurel O’Halloran, conducted roll call with the following Board members present in the Chamber: Sarah Boyle, Anna Bornstein, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, and one vacancy.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) elect a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary for a one-year term in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 3.02.050(b), Members – Terms.
Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Planner
Chair Boyle made a motion, seconded by Member Brooks, to nominate Member Bornstein to be the Chair.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, Anna Bornstein NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Member Brooks made a motion, seconded by Secretary Sutphen, to nominate Sarah Boyle to be the Vice Chair.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, Anna Bornstein NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Secretary Sutphen made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Boyle, to nominate Member Brooks to be secretary.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, Anna Bornstein NOES: None
ABSENT: None
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Vice Chair Boyle, and seconded by Secretary Brooks, the Board voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Anna Bornstein, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen NOES: None
ABSENT: None
4. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Staff Liaison Laurel O’Halloran introduced the new CDD Director, Karen Vaughan, and the new Senior Planner, Aaron Campbell.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Debby Beck announced the City Council meeting was moved from February 7th to the 14th due to power outages.
6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment
None
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Secretary Brooks, seconded by Vice Chair Boyle, the Board voted to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Anna Bornstein, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
8. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Draft January ARB 2024 Minutes
Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the draft January 2024 ARB minutes as submitted.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0198 for 1113 Piedmont Avenue (APN 007-585-009).
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1/ Medium Density Residential (9.7 du/ac) Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Approve the Architectural Permit (AP) 23-0198 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).
Reference: Garrett McCown, Assistant Planner
Garret McCowen, project Planner, introduced the project.
Designer Aaron Tollefson spoke to the project.
The Chair opened the floor to public comment:
The Chair closed the public comment with none received.
The Board engaged in discussion regarding the project.
Member Sutphen made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Boyle, to approve Architectural Permit 23-00198 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, Anna Bornstein NOES: None
ABSENT: None
B. Architectural Permit and Administrative Use Permit 23-0302, 905 Ripple Avenue, Pacific Grove (APN 006-061-008)
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / Medium Density Residential 7.3 du/ac Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Approve Architectural Permit and Administrative Use Permit 23-0302 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Aaron Campbell, on behalf of project Planner Joe Sidor, introduced the project.
Architect Hunter Eldridge spoke to the project.
The Chair opened the floor to public comment:
The Chair closed the public comment with no comments received.
The Board engaged in discussion regarding the project.
Vice Chair Boyle made a motion, seconded by Secretary Brooks, to approve Architectural Permit 23-0302 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, Anna Bornstein NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C. Architectural Permit (AP) No. 23-0360, 1257 Buena Vista Ave., (APN 007-566-013) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Architectural Permit (AP) No. 23-0360, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).
Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Aaron Campbell, project Planner, introduced the project.
Designer Steven Krebbs spoke to the project.
The Chair opened the floor to public comment:
Inge Lorentzen Daumer spoke.
The Chair closed public comment.
The Board engaged in discussion regarding the project.
Vice Member Sutphen made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Boyle, to approve Architectural Permit 23-0302 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.
Motion carried 4-0-1 (vacancy), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sarah Boyle, Scott Brooks, Christi Sutphen, Anna Bornstein NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. NEXT MEETING - March 12, 2024
ADJOURNMENT: 3:45 p.m.
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: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Beautification and Natural Resources Committee Minutes: May through October 2023 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.
Attachments
BNRC Minutes May - Oct 2023
Agenda No. 11 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
3. Introduce and hold a first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule; and approve the amendment; and
4. Direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
The City salary classification schedule identifies the job classifications approved by Council (e.g., Office Assistant) and the hourly rates of pay for each classification at each step authorized by the Personnel Rules.
Pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280, approval and amendment to the classification schedule must be adopted by the Council.
October of 2023, City Council established a City Manager Pro Tempore classification and salary to temporarily fill the City Manager vacancy while recruiting for an interim. The salary established was retroactive to July 28, 2023. This temporary vacancy was filled by the Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director on July 28, 2023, who continued to work in her regular classification and the City Manager Pro Tempore classification while recruitment was ongoing to fill the interim. Ms. Hannah ended her temporary assignment on November 12, 2023.
2023 Cost of Living Adjustments/Market Adjustments
In November 2023, City Council approved a 3% salary Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and salary market adjustments (for certain classifications) for the members of the Management Employees Association (MEA), the Nonrepresented Management and Confidential Group and the Department Head Group effective August 20, 2023. Prior to that, the General Employees also received at 3% COLA effective August 20, 2023.
The City Manager Pro Tempore classification was not included in the 3% COLA increase that occurred with the other employee groups. As a result, there is salary compaction between the City Manager Pro Tempore classification and the Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director classification.
Before the 3% COLA
$103.85 hourly City Manager Pro Tempore (first/top step) $ 99.09 hourly Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director (top step) $ 4.76 hourly difference
After the 3% COLA and/or Mkt for Department Heads (effective 8/20/23) $103.85 hourly City Manager Pro Tempore (first/top step) $102.06 hourly Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director (top step) $1.79 hourly difference
Increasing the City Manager Pro Tempore with 3% COLA
$106.97 hourly City Manager Pro Tempore with 3% COLA (first/top step) $102.06 hourly Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director (top step) $4.91 hourly difference
It would be appropriate to increase the City Manager Pro Temp classification by 3% as we did for the other management classifications effective August 23, 2023. Making this modest recommended change will alleviate the salary compaction issue retrospectively.
The requested change to the salary classification schedule will only impact the positions listed in this agenda report. All other classification hourly salary ranges will remain the same. To view the entire salary schedule, please refer to the City's website, http://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/about-city/human-resources/salaries-benefitsand-mous. To view the revised classification hourly salary ranges for the classifications listed below, please see the related ordinance linked to this agenda report.
OPTIONS
1. Approve Ordinance amending the salary classification schedule for City Manager Pro Tempore.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated impact for the transionary period is approximately $2,600. There is sufficient funds within the Fiscal Year 23/24 Budget to cover these costs.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 24-________
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE
Findings
1. In 2023, City Council approved a 3% salary Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and salary market adjustments (for certain classifications) for members of the General Employees Association (GEA), Management Employees Association (MEA), the Nonrepresented Management and Confidential Group and the Department Head Group, effective August 20, 2023.
2. The 3% COLA did not include the City Manager Pro Tempore classification; and
3. The City Manager Pro Tempore classification was temporarily filled by the Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director on July 28, 2023; and
4. There is salary compaction between the City Manager Pro Tempore and the Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director; and
5. Providing a 3% COLA to the City Manager Pro Tempore classification will modestly alleviate salary compaction; and
6. Modifications to the salary classification plan must be amended to revise hourly rates; and
7. Amendment to the classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280; and
8. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant Section 15378.
Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing findings of the City Council are incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in full.
SECTION 2. The position classification plan approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 15 and PGMC § 4.20.280 is amended for the City Manager Pro Tempore classification with the following salary schedule:
Hourly Salary Steps
Classification Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
1A 2B 3C 4D 5E 6F 7G 8H
City Manager Pro Tempore 106.97
SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective retroactively to August 20, 2023.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this ___ day of April 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
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: Amy Colony, Management Analyst
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Chinese Pavilion Project
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive update and authorize the City Manager to proceed with Elmarie Dyke Open Space as the preferred location for the Chinese Pavilion project and include it as a CIP project for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.
2. Alternative, take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
Last year, the City of Pacific Grove was approached by the Monterey Bay Chinese Association with the idea of constructing a Chinese Pavilion to honor the history of Chinese Americans in Pacific Grove. This idea was originally presented to the BNRC as a public art project to be included in the FY 23/24 Capital Improvement Program Project (CIP) plan. The initial request included the City donating a portion of land adjacent to the recreation trail and partnering with the Monterey Bay Chinese Association to construct the pavilion.
Unfortunately, the project's concept as a public art piece built along the coastline was not approved for inclusion in the FY 23/24 CIP plan.
This year, the Monterey Bay Chinese Association explored alternative locations for the pavilion within existing city parks. After reviewing locations and conferring with staff it was decided that the gazebo site within Elmarie Dyke Park was a suitable location. The concept envisioned replacing the existing failing gazebo with the newly constructed Chinese pavilion. The project organizers hired an architect to provide a project scope and preliminary conceptual designs. These plans included conceptual renderings of the pavilion along with the construction of a traditional Chinese moon wall at the entrance of the park. (Attachment 1: Conceptual Renderings).
These conceptual plans, including the pavilion and moon wall, were presented at the 9/28/2023 Recreation Board meeting. The Recreation Board received the report and recommended bringing this item forward to the City Council for inclusion into the FY 2024/25 Capital Improvement Program plan.
On December 20, 2023 City staff brought forward the Chinese pavilion project for City Council consideration, with the recommendation to remove and replace the gazebo at Elmarie Dyke Park with a Chinese Pavilion. The City Council wanted staff to explore potential alternative locations, including the museum garden. An overview of these findings with location photos is included with this staff report (Attachment 2: Location Evaluation).
Below is a condensed summary:
Elmarie Dyke Park: Preferred location
Owned by the City
Free and open to the public
Easily accessible with established pedestrian access and parking Close to the downtown business district, near tourist areas Replaces a similarly sized structure
Allows a place to gather in a garden setting
Spoke to the Elmaire Dyke family and they have given blessing for the pavilion Concerns about the potential impact on historic Chautauqua Hall, though the Elmaire Dyke Park parcel is separate from the Chauatuauqua Hall parcel and not part of the historic designation Recreation Trail near Hopkins Marine Station: Not recommended Owned by the City but would require a Coastal Development Permit Free and open to the public
Easily accessible with established pedestrian access and parking Historically significant site near high tourist areas
Would require significant construction due to slope
May impede bike and pedestrian traffic on the Rec Trail Small footprint and would not allow space to gather
May require land acquisition from Hopkins Marien Station Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History: Not recommended City-owned facility and high-volume
Not easily accessible due to the required entrance fee and museum hours of operation Trees may have to be removed due to limited space in the garden The museum has plans to redevelop the garden with grant funding (Attachment 3: PG Museum of Natural History Letter)
Caledonia Park: Not recommended
Owned by the City and free to the public
Parking and pedestrian travel prohibitive
Surrounded by homes
Low tourist area
Esplanade Park: Not recommended
Owned by the City and free to the public
Parking and pedestrian travel prohibitive
Surrounded by homes
Low tourist area
Area of natural terrain and trees
City staff recommends including the Chinese Pavilion as part of the CIP for Fiscal Year 24/25 with Elmarie Dyke Park as the preferred location.
OPTIONS
1. Have staff look into an alternative location
2. Do not proceed with the project
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Monterey Bay Chinese Association has committed to funding the entirety of the project costs through fundraising efforts.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Conceptual Renderings
Chinese Pavilion Location Evaluation
Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Letter
Elmarie Dyke Park
Preferred Location
Pros:
1) Location owned by the city
2) No future development plans
3) Would replace the existing structure of similar size 4) Sidewalks and crosswalks nearby
5) Not near residential areas
6) Free and open to the public
7) A peaceful garden location typically where pavilions are located to invoke reflection and relaxation
8) Location would hopefully attract tourists further into Pacific Grove’s downtown business area
9) Supported by the Elmarie Dyke family
Cons:
1) Some expressed concerns about its potential impact on the historic designation of Chautauqua Hall. Confirmed that Chautauqua Hall and Elmarie Dyke Park are on different parcels.
Rec Trail near Hopkins Marine Station
Not a recommended location
Pros:
1) Location owned by the city (would require Coastal Development Permit)
2) No future development plans
3) Sidewalks and crosswalks nearby
4) Near very high pedestrian and tourist locations
5) Not near residential areas
6) Free and open to the public
7) Historically significant area near the original Chinese Fishing Village Cons:
1) Would require additional platform due to uneven slope 2) Might be subjected to vandalism due to the location
3) No room for small events or gatherings
4) May impede bike and pedestrian traffic on the rec trail 5) Location would require land acquisition from Hopkins Marine Center Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History
Not a recommended location
Pros:
1) Location owned by the city
2) High tourist area due to location in museum back garden 3) Established sidewalks and crosswalks nearby
4) Not near residential areas
Cons:
1) Not very accessible due to limited days/hours for visitors 2) Non-local visitors must pay an entrance fee
3) May require tree and/or plant removal
4) The museum already has plans to redevelop the garden with grant funding. The museum submitted a letter supporting the pavilion but confirmed that the museum garden is not an ideal location.
Caledonia Park
Not a recommended location
Pros:
1) Location owned by the city
2) No future development plans
3) Free and open to the public
Cons:
1) Surrounded by residential homes
2) Low pedestrian area
3) Low tourist activity
4) No sidewalks
Esplanade Park
Not a recommended location
Pros:
1) Location owned by the city
2) No future development plans
3) Free and open to the public
Cons:
1) Surrounded by residential homes
2) Low pedestrian area
3) Low tourist activity
4) No sidewalks or crosswalks
5) Would place a new structure in an area primarily consisting of natural terrain
Agenda No. 12 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Special Event Calendar FY 2023-2024 Late Additions CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve Enchanted Forest as a Full Cost Recovery Special Event for inclusion in the FY 2023-2024 Special Events Calendar
2. Approve the first date of the EDC Concert Series as City Sponsored Special Event for inclusion in the FY 2023-2024 Special Events Calendar
DISCUSSION
On July 27, 2022, City Council updated the Special Event Policy 900-1 to include instructions for late or "offcycle" applications. An off-cycle application refers to any application received after the November 30th submission deadline. The policy specifies that off cycle applications must be received 150 days prior to event, cannot conflict with other special events, and will not be recommended as "City Sponsored" events.
On March 15, 2023, City Council approved an updated version of the FY 2023-2024 Special Event Calendar.
This calendar had 28 approved special events, 22 City Sponsored and 6 Full Cost Recovery. Since the approval, there have been 2 events that were canceled by the event organizers.
On November 30, 2023, City staff received a FY 2023-2024 Special Event Application from ActiveMe Inc for an event called Enchanted Forest. The application for Enchanted Forest was received with more than 150 days remaining before the event and does not overlap with any special events listed on the FY 2023-2024 Special Event Calendar. City staff reviewed the application for feasibility, safety and cost, and prepared a presentation for the Recreation Board.
On December 8, 2023, City staff received a FY 2023-2024 Special Event Application from the Pacific Grove Economic Development Commission for an event called the EDC Concert Series. This application is for the first event in what will be a series of 4 separate concerts. The application was received with more than 150 days remaining before the event. The first date of the series does not overlap with any special events listed on the FY 2023-2024 Special Event Calendar. City staff reviewed the application for feasibility, safety and cost, and prepared a presentation for the Recreation Board.
On January 25, 2024, the Recreation Board reviewed the presentation for the Enchanted Forest. They are recommending this event for inclusion in the FY 2023-2024 Special Events Calendar as a Full Cost Recovery Event with the trail fees waived. At the same meeting, the Recreation Board reviewed the presentation for the first date of EDC Concert Series. They are recommending this event for inclusion in the FY 2023-2024 Special Event Calendar as a City Sponsored Event.
Event information - Enchanted Forest
Enchanted Forest is sponsored by ActiveMe Inc. which is a local non-profit group. The event will take place on June 1, 2024, at Rip Van Winkle Open Space from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. The event is designed for children and their families and will include a 1-mile walk on the marked trail of the open space. Along the walk children will meet their favorite fairytale characters and mystical forest creatures. There will be 10 stations on the course where the characters will challenge kids with physical, creative, and problem-solving activities. The purpose of the event is to bring children and their families together in an outdoor setting and encourage the use of imagination and pretend play while promoting physical and mental health. Families will have the opportunity to bring new or like new toys, board games, and puzzles to be donated to local families in need.
The event will have 250 registrations and will space those participants out over the course of 4 hours to prevent traffic and parking congestion. This will also allow the trail to remain open to the public during this event. An admission fee of $25/child will be collected to help cover the cost of event supplies. Biodegradable trail markers will be used and removed immediately after the close of the event. ActiveMe will provide 20-25 event staff to help with registration and check-in, stations, trail safety, first aid, and clean up. A crossing guard will also be provided.
The Recreation Board recommends that this event be full cost recovery with the trail and use fees waived. City staff does not have that as an option per the policy to waive some fees but still have the event be full cost recovery. It is recommended by staff that this event be Full Cost Recovery and all associated cost are paid for by the event organizers.
Event information - EDC Concert Series
The EDC Concert Series is sponsored by the Pacific Grove Economic Development Commission. The series will include 4 separate concert dates between June 7-September 6, 2024. The first concert will be held on June 7, 2024, from 4:00-6:00 pm and will use the park, gazebo, and grass area of Jewell Park. This concert is the only date included in this FY 2023-2024 Special Event Application for inclusion in the current FY 2023-2024 Special Event Calendar. The remaining 3 dates fall within the next fiscal year and are included in a separate FY 2024- 2025 Special Event Application for inclusion in the FY 2024-2025 Special Event Calendar. The event will provide a free music concert for the community to enjoy in the late afternoon. The musicians will use the gazebo as a stage and the community members may view the concert from the grass area of the park. The purpose of the event is to use a concert setting to provide a place where people can meet and visit other members of the community. Those attending may bring a blanket, chairs, and a picnic to eat on the grass. There will also be an invitation to visit the local restaurants and shops at the end of the concert.
Because this event is associated with the Economic Development Commission and is part of the concert series, staff recommends deviation from the policy allowing the late addition to the calendar to be City Sponsored.
OPTIONS
1. Take no action
2. Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Enchanted Forest event will require the following City staffing and resources. 2 Public Works staff for 2 hours each to check the trail and trash cans prior to and after the event. Staffing fees will cost an estimated $412.12. Remaining fees for this event will be the application fee at $230.00 and trail use fees of $1,805.00. The total estimated cost for this event will be $2,447.12. The Recreation Board is recommending this event to be a Full Cost Recovery Special Event with the trail use fees of $1,805.00 to be waived. If approved, the event organizers would be responsible for staffing and event application fees totaling $642.12. The trail use fees of $1,805.00 would be waived.
The EDC Concert Series June 7th event will require the following City staffing and resources. 2 Public Works staff for 4 hours each to set up and take down street closures, check the restrooms, and empty trash. Staffing fees will cost an estimated $881.72. The application fee is $230.00, the sound permit fee is $89.00, the park use fees are $1,035.00, and the public works equipment usage fees will be $183.00. The total estimated cost for this event will be $2,418.72. There is an additional $500.00 refundable sound permit deposit that is not included in this amount. The Recreation Board is recommending this event to be a City Sponsored Event. If approved, the total amount to be subsided by the City would be $881.72 with the fees for the application, sound permit, park use, and public works equipment fees totaling $1537.00 waived.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
Attachments
2023-2024 Special Events Calendar - Late Additions
2023-2024 Special Events Calendar - Late Additions
CDP Permit Issued 2024-03-15
900-1 Special Events
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT POLICY NO. EFFECTIVE DATE PAGE NO.
Special Events 900-1 February 16, 2011 1 of 3
PURPOSE
The intent of this policy is to provide guidance for the conduct of special events in the City and ensure an appropriate balance between the number and scope of special events with the ability of City neighborhoods and facilities to adequately handle such events.
POLICY
I. General
The City shall have the discretion to limit the number of special events in any fiscal year.
All special events will be limited to those activities that benefit Pacific Grove residents or businesses.
Most special events are either one-time or annual. Certain special events, such as the Farmers' Market, are periodic and ongoing.
The Council reserves the right to take actions creating exceptions to this policy in the event of special circumstances.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements
The ADA requires the City of Pacific Grove and public accommodations to provide equitable access for people with disabilities. Event organizers are expected follow ADA guidelines and provide and maintain access for people with disabilities. This may include providing a clear path of travel to and on sidewalks, curb cuts and restrooms; maintaining already-designated parking for people with disabilities, providing additional parking for people with disabilities if parking is provided; and providing accessible restrooms.
Non-Discrimination Policy
The City of Pacific Grove (City) requires that no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259) or due to breastfeeding in a public place, gender identity, marital status, political ideology, religion, sexual orientation, or military status or veteran status. The City of Pacific Grove also includes immigration status, ethnic background and Neurodivergent people, in its non-discrimination policy. The City further assures every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination and inclusivity in all of its programs and activities, whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not. Permitted special events must comply with the City's nondiscrimination policy and all applicable City, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
*Neurodivergent or ND refers to variations in the human brain and cognition, for instance in sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions.
II. Types of Special Events
The City will create an annual calendar of special events. Events included in the annual calendar shall have first priority for the scheduled locations and times. Requests for inclusion in the annual calendar shall be submitted to the City by November 30th for any event to be held during the following fiscal year.
Such events will not be approved if they conflict with already approved events. Events requiring City Council approval are those that:
• Require City sponsorship or other City support;
• Preclude others from using an entire outdoor public facility (e.g., Caledonia Park); • Are likely to have a significant impact on substantial numbers of residents or businesses (e.g., closure of multiple or high-traffic streets for a significant amount of time, as determined by the City Manager); or
• Have other characteristics that warrant public consideration by the Council.
More limited events may be approved by staff. A neighborhood event, requiring closure only of a neighborhood street, for example, would not require Council approval. In these cases, those persons incurring the costs of the street closure are the same persons benefiting from the event.
III. Information Required
Each application for special events shall contain the following information:
A. A description of the proposed event.
B. A statement of the purpose of the event and its benefits to the City including actions of inclusivity that are reflective of the diverse community which we aim to be.
C. The name of the sponsoring organization.
D. The date, location, and time (to include preparation and clean up) of the event. In the case of a race or parade, a map of the proposed route shall be submitted.
E. An estimate of the number of participants and/or spectators.
F. A description of City facilities, support, and personnel required.
G. A list of personnel to be provided by the sponsor.
H. A description of parking arrangements for the event.
I. If electronic sound amplification equipment will be used, an application for the necessary permit shall be made as required by Chapter 11.94 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.
J. A description of the proposed refuse management and recycling program for plastics, glass, paper, and aluminum during the event.
K. A listing of accommodations provided by the sponsor pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
L. A listing of fees proposed to be charged, commercial sales, commercial filming, and the service or sale of food and/or alcohol.
III. Conditions of Permit
Once the Council approves an application, the sponsoring organization shall comply with the following conditions:
A. At least 30 days prior to the event, furnish the City with a certificate of insurance in an amount not less than $2 million naming the City of Pacific Grove as an additional insured.
Such insurance shall be primary to any City insurance, and the City must have at least ten days’ notice of cancellation.
B. The sponsoring organization shall reimburse the City for all direct and incidental expenses for the use of the City personnel and facilities. The sponsor has the option of using volunteers or other non-City personnel for some functions (e.g., placing barricades, emptying public trash cans, etc.) Other functions (e.g., Police security) require City personnel. The City has the absolute discretion to determine the number of personnel who will be provided for a particular event.
C. The sponsor is responsible for all sign removal, litter control, clean-up activities, and for providing necessary containers and personnel for recycling activities, as determined by the City.
D. The sponsor shall provide portable restroom facilities if deemed necessary by the City and in compliance with the ADA.
E. The sponsor shall be advised that the sponsor is responsible for determining what, if any, accommodations are required of sponsor pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act.
F. An approved Special Event Application is required for all groups and shall be in the possession of the sponsor or representative at the event.
G. The City will review applications and additional approvals may be deemed necessary.
H. If amplification is to be used a deposit of $500 will need to be paid along with the application fee. If it is determined that amplification exceeds allowable levels or has locations have not been preapproved by City Staff then the deposit may not be returned.
The City of Pacific Grove reserves the right to revoke permissions for an event at any time.
IV. Event Classifications
The Council established the following classification of events to be used in determining the events scheduled for each calendar year: Special Events and City Sponsored Events.
Special Events: These are Special Events that require exclusive use of City property and require support from Police, Fire and / or Public Works. Special Events will be deemed full cost recovery
City Sponsored Events: These events include traditional events that are primarily hosted by the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, or the City and shall receive full City Support. These events will be noted annually on the Special Events Calendar for approval by the City Council.
V. Review, Approval, and Scheduling of Events
All activities approved are authorized for the subsequent year only and, continued Council approval should not be assumed. Activities may be discontinued if they become too large or if they create problems that would substantially disrupt the peace and quiet of a neighborhood.
Should the City receive requests for more activities than may be accommodated, the City will establish an appropriate random drawing type of system or other suitable method for determining those activities to be approved.
Completed special event applications received by November 30 will be given priority for the upcoming fiscal year July 1 – June 30. Key dates for review and approval are:
• November – Recreation Department receives completed applications • December – Staff prepares recommendation
• January – Recreation Board prepares recommendation
• February – Council approves events, calendar, and city sponsorship • March – Staff publishes Special Events calendar
Completed special event applications received after November 30 (off-cycle) shall be considered if:
1. Not in conflict with approved special events or issued park/facility permit
2. Received a minimum 150 days in advance of the event
3. Off-cycle events brought forward for review will not be recommended as “City
4. Sponsored” special events.
Off-cycle applications will undergo the same review and approval process as for applications received by November 30.
Adopted: July 20, 2022 by Minute Order.
Adopted: July 6, 2022 by Minute Order
Adopted: April 16, 1986-Resolution No. 5705
Amended: January 7, 1987-Resolution No. 5787
Amended: February 5, 1992-Resolution No. 6238
Amended: March 3, 1993-Resolution No. 6331
Amended: November 15, 1995-Resolution No. 6489
Amended: November 5, 1997-Resolution No. 7-057
Amended: June 2, 2010-Resolution No. 10-044
Amended: February 16, 2011-Resolution No. 11-012
Amended: October 17, 2018 – Resolution 18-037
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: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
MEETING DATE: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: Special Event Calendar FY 2024-2025
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Special Events Calendar
2. Approve 7 proposed events as Special Events to be billed at full cost recovery rates
3. Approve 23 proposed special events as City Sponsored Events and waive the fees for City staff support and equipment/facility usage
DISCUSSION
At the beginning of each calendar year the Recreation Board reviews a list of proposed Special Events scheduled to occur during the upcoming fiscal year (July -- June) and makes a recommendation for City Council to approve these events as classified pursuant to City Council Policy No. 900-1.
The proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Special Events Calendar has 30 events which is an increase of 2 events from the original calendar approved for prior year. The calendar and estimated costs associated with each event can be found within agenda attachments.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY 900-1: SPECIAL EVENTS
City Council Policy 900-1 Special Events provides clear guidance for all Special Events held within the City of Pacific Grove. This policy outlines the process for application submission, application review, event classification, billing, late submissions and approval by City Council. Each year the application is posted during the summer.
Completed applications are due by November 30th, reviewed by City Staff, presented to the Recreation Board in January, and then taken to City Council for final approval in February. This policy ensures that a healthy and financially feasible balance remains in place between the number of special event applications and the ability of our neighborhoods, parks, and facilities to accommodate approved events. As such, Special Events are to be classified as either:
1. Special Events: These are Special Events that require exclusive use of City property and require support from Police, Fire and / or Public Works. Special Events will be deemed full cost recovery.
2. City Sponsored Events: These events include traditional events that are primarily hosted by the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, or the City and shall receive full City Support. These events will be noted annually on the Special Events Calendar for approval by the City Council.
The Community Development Department and the Recreation Department has made a presentation to the Planning Commission for the required Coastal Development Permit prior to presenting the FY 2024-2025 Special Events Calendar for City Council approval. The Planning Commission approved a 3 year Coastal Development Permit at their March 14. 2024 for the events that reside within the coastal zone for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 events calendar. The permit is attached to this report.
PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONS
Special Events (Full Cost Recovery): Events are billed at the full cost recovery rates for staff support and facility/equipment use. Most of these events consist of a variety of fundraisers, races, walks and car shows.
Special Events (Full Cost Recovery) include Celebration of our Lady of Fatima, Classic Motorsports Kick-Off Car, Legends of the Autobahn, BSIM Monterey Bay Half Marathon & 5K/By the Bay 3K, Rudolph Run 1K & 5K Walk/Run, Santa's Magic Trail, and Enchanted Forest.
City Sponsored: All costs associated with these events including staffing and equipment/facility use are proposed to be waived, with an increased emphasis of utilizing volunteers whenever possible.
City Sponsored Events include 4th of July Celebration, EDC Concert Series, Pet Parade, Pacific Grove Summer Lights Dance, Pacific Grove Summer Lights, Hiroshima-Nagasaki Remembrance Day, National Night Out, Little Car Show, P.G. Concours Auto Rally, Walk with Pride, Butterfly Parade, Sunset Celebration, Butterfly Days, Veterans Day Ceremony, Holiday Tree Lighting, Holiday Parade of Lights, Stillwell's Holiday in the Park, Quilt Show, Good Old Days, and the Walk of Remembrance.
NEW EVENT APPLICATIONS
The EDC Concert Series is sponsored by the Pacific Grove Economic Development Commission. The series will include 4 separate concert dates between June 7-September 6, 2024. The first concert falls within the FY 2023- 2024 and the application has been included in a separate agenda report for consideration in the FY 2023-2024 Special Event Calendar. The remaining 3 concerts will occur in FY 2024-2025 and are being presented for inclusion in the FY 2024-2025 Special Event Calendar. All concerts will be held at Jewell Park from 4:00-6:00 pm and will use the park, gazebo, and grass area of Jewell Park. The events will provide a free music concert for the community to enjoy in an open park space. The musicians will use the gazebo as a stage and community members may view the concert from the grass area of the park. Those attending may bring a blanket, chairs, and a picnic lunch to eat on the grass. There will also be an invitation to visit the local restaurants and shops at the end of the concert.
Santa's Holiday Trail is sponsored by ActiveMe Inc. which is a local non-profit group. The event will take place on December 14, 2024 at Rip Van Winkle Open Space from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. The event is designed for children and their families and will include a 1-mile walk on the marked trail of the open space. Along the walk children will meet holiday characters like Frosty the Snowman, the Nutcracker, Santa's Reindeer, and Santa.
There will be 10 stations on the course where the characters will challenge kids with physical, creative, and problem-solving activities. Participants will meet Santa at the end of the walk and receive a gift. The purpose of the event is to encourage the use of imagination and pretend play while promoting physical and mental health.
Families will have the opportunity to bring new or like new toys, board games, and puzzles to be donated to local families in need.
The event will have 250 registrations and will space those participants out over the course of 4 hours to prevent traffic and parking congestion. This will also allow the trail to remain open to the public during this event. An admission fee of $25/child will be collected to help cover the cost of event supplies. Biodegradable trail markers will be used and removed immediately after the close of the event. ActiveMe will provide 20-25 event staff to help with registration and check-in, course stations, trail safety, first aid, and clean up. A crossing guard will also be provided.
The Recreation Board recommends that this event be full cost recovery with the trail and use fees waived. City staff does not have that as an option per the policy to waive some fees but still have the event be full cost recovery. It is recommended by staff that this event be full cost recovery and all associated cost are paid for by the event organizers.
OPTIONS
1. Take no action
2. Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Each application has been reviewed by City Staff for safety, feasibility, and calculation of all anticipated costs to be incurred by the City or sponsoring organization. City Staff is recommending that 7 events be classified as Special Events to be billed at full cost recovery rates. The fees for City personnel, equipment usage, facility rental, and all other permitting costs will be the responsibility of the organization hosting the event. City Staff is recommending 23 special events to be classified as City Sponsored Events. The fees for City personnel, including Public Works, Police, Fire and Recreation would be subsidized by the City of Pacific Grove. The fees for equipment usage, facility rentals, and any permit charges would be waived.
Staffing costs for Public Works, Police, Fire and Recreation to provide City services, such as setup and breakdown of equipment, crowd control and safety management, traffic control and other types of support have become very costly. However, the amount to be subsidized by the City has gone down from the previous fiscal year. The estimated staffing costs for all 30 events is $114,314.11. Fees for staffing, equipment/facility usage and permit processing from the full cost recovery events will provide an estimated $59,018.04 in revenue. The City of Pacific Grove will need to subsidize an estimated $55,297.07 in order to safely and successfully execute the 30 events listed on the proposed FY 2024-2025 Special Events Calendar. City staff will continue working with event organizers to reduce the City's associated costs of these events whenever possible by utilizing volunteers, community groups and students seeking community service hours.
The proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Special Events Calendar provides a lineup of events that offer many benefits to our local community. These events allow our residents and visitors a chance to enjoy a variety of activities, support local businesses and non-profit groups, and engage with each other. The total economic impact and benefits in the form of increased Transient Occupancy and Sales taxes are not known, but special events traditionally have made a positive impact on the City's economy. Many of these events attract participants and visitors from outside the peninsula. Many of these same people return to participate in other Pacific Grove events(s).
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
Attachments
FY 2024-25 SE Calendar
FY 2024-25 SE Cost Estimate
CDP Issued 2024-03-15
900-1 Special Events
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT POLICY NO. EFFECTIVE DATE PAGE NO.
Special Events 900-1 February 16, 2011 1 of 3
PURPOSE
The intent of this policy is to provide guidance for the conduct of special events in the City and ensure an appropriate balance between the number and scope of special events with the ability of City neighborhoods and facilities to adequately handle such events.
POLICY
I. General
The City shall have the discretion to limit the number of special events in any fiscal year.
All special events will be limited to those activities that benefit Pacific Grove residents or businesses.
Most special events are either one-time or annual. Certain special events, such as the Farmers' Market, are periodic and ongoing.
The Council reserves the right to take actions creating exceptions to this policy in the event of special circumstances.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements
The ADA requires the City of Pacific Grove and public accommodations to provide equitable access for people with disabilities. Event organizers are expected follow ADA guidelines and provide and maintain access for people with disabilities. This may include providing a clear path of travel to and on sidewalks, curb cuts and restrooms; maintaining already-designated parking for people with disabilities, providing additional parking for people with disabilities if parking is provided; and providing accessible restrooms.
Non-Discrimination Policy
The City of Pacific Grove (City) requires that no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity on the grounds of race, color, sex, age, disability or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100.259) or due to breastfeeding in a public place, gender identity, marital status, political ideology, religion, sexual orientation, or military status or veteran status. The City of Pacific Grove also includes immigration status, ethnic background and Neurodivergent people, in its non-discrimination policy. The City further assures every effort will be made to ensure nondiscrimination and inclusivity in all of its programs and activities, whether those programs and activities are federally funded or not. Permitted special events must comply with the City's nondiscrimination policy and all applicable City, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
*Neurodivergent or ND refers to variations in the human brain and cognition, for instance in sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions.
II. Types of Special Events
The City will create an annual calendar of special events. Events included in the annual calendar shall have first priority for the scheduled locations and times. Requests for inclusion in the annual calendar shall be submitted to the City by November 30th for any event to be held during the following fiscal year.
Such events will not be approved if they conflict with already approved events. Events requiring City Council approval are those that:
• Require City sponsorship or other City support;
• Preclude others from using an entire outdoor public facility (e.g., Caledonia Park); • Are likely to have a significant impact on substantial numbers of residents or businesses (e.g., closure of multiple or high-traffic streets for a significant amount of time, as determined by the City Manager); or
• Have other characteristics that warrant public consideration by the Council.
More limited events may be approved by staff. A neighborhood event, requiring closure only of a neighborhood street, for example, would not require Council approval. In these cases, those persons incurring the costs of the street closure are the same persons benefiting from the event.
III. Information Required
Each application for special events shall contain the following information:
A. A description of the proposed event.
B. A statement of the purpose of the event and its benefits to the City including actions of inclusivity that are reflective of the diverse community which we aim to be.
C. The name of the sponsoring organization.
D. The date, location, and time (to include preparation and clean up) of the event. In the case of a race or parade, a map of the proposed route shall be submitted.
E. An estimate of the number of participants and/or spectators.
F. A description of City facilities, support, and personnel required.
G. A list of personnel to be provided by the sponsor.
H. A description of parking arrangements for the event.
I. If electronic sound amplification equipment will be used, an application for the necessary permit shall be made as required by Chapter 11.94 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.
J. A description of the proposed refuse management and recycling program for plastics, glass, paper, and aluminum during the event.
K. A listing of accommodations provided by the sponsor pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
L. A listing of fees proposed to be charged, commercial sales, commercial filming, and the service or sale of food and/or alcohol.
III. Conditions of Permit
Once the Council approves an application, the sponsoring organization shall comply with the following conditions:
A. At least 30 days prior to the event, furnish the City with a certificate of insurance in an amount not less than $2 million naming the City of Pacific Grove as an additional insured.
Such insurance shall be primary to any City insurance, and the City must have at least ten days’ notice of cancellation.
B. The sponsoring organization shall reimburse the City for all direct and incidental expenses for the use of the City personnel and facilities. The sponsor has the option of using volunteers or other non-City personnel for some functions (e.g., placing barricades, emptying public trash cans, etc.) Other functions (e.g., Police security) require City personnel. The City has the absolute discretion to determine the number of personnel who will be provided for a particular event.
C. The sponsor is responsible for all sign removal, litter control, clean-up activities, and for providing necessary containers and personnel for recycling activities, as determined by the City.
D. The sponsor shall provide portable restroom facilities if deemed necessary by the City and in compliance with the ADA.
E. The sponsor shall be advised that the sponsor is responsible for determining what, if any, accommodations are required of sponsor pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act.
F. An approved Special Event Application is required for all groups and shall be in the possession of the sponsor or representative at the event.
G. The City will review applications and additional approvals may be deemed necessary.
H. If amplification is to be used a deposit of $500 will need to be paid along with the application fee. If it is determined that amplification exceeds allowable levels or has locations have not been preapproved by City Staff then the deposit may not be returned.
The City of Pacific Grove reserves the right to revoke permissions for an event at any time.
IV. Event Classifications
The Council established the following classification of events to be used in determining the events scheduled for each calendar year: Special Events and City Sponsored Events.
Special Events: These are Special Events that require exclusive use of City property and require support from Police, Fire and / or Public Works. Special Events will be deemed full cost recovery
City Sponsored Events: These events include traditional events that are primarily hosted by the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, or the City and shall receive full City Support. These events will be noted annually on the Special Events Calendar for approval by the City Council.
V. Review, Approval, and Scheduling of Events
All activities approved are authorized for the subsequent year only and, continued Council approval should not be assumed. Activities may be discontinued if they become too large or if they create problems that would substantially disrupt the peace and quiet of a neighborhood.
Should the City receive requests for more activities than may be accommodated, the City will establish an appropriate random drawing type of system or other suitable method for determining those activities to be approved.
Completed special event applications received by November 30 will be given priority for the upcoming fiscal year July 1 – June 30. Key dates for review and approval are:
• November – Recreation Department receives completed applications • December – Staff prepares recommendation
• January – Recreation Board prepares recommendation
• February – Council approves events, calendar, and city sponsorship • March – Staff publishes Special Events calendar
Completed special event applications received after November 30 (off-cycle) shall be considered if:
1. Not in conflict with approved special events or issued park/facility permit
2. Received a minimum 150 days in advance of the event
3. Off-cycle events brought forward for review will not be recommended as “City
4. Sponsored” special events.
Off-cycle applications will undergo the same review and approval process as for applications received by November 30.
Adopted: July 20, 2022 by Minute Order.
Adopted: July 6, 2022 by Minute Order
Adopted: April 16, 1986-Resolution No. 5705
Amended: January 7, 1987-Resolution No. 5787
Amended: February 5, 1992-Resolution No. 6238
Amended: March 3, 1993-Resolution No. 6331
Amended: November 15, 1995-Resolution No. 6489
Amended: November 5, 1997-Resolution No. 7-057
Amended: June 2, 2010-Resolution No. 10-044
Amended: February 16, 2011-Resolution No. 11-012
Amended: October 17, 2018 – Resolution 18-037
Agenda No. 13 B
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: April 03, 2024
SUBJECT: American Tin Cannery Project and Comment by City to the California Coastal Commission.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Direct the Mayor to provide written comment to the California Coastal Commission in support of the revised ATC Project or other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
On April 19, 2016, the votes of the City of Pacific Grove at a Special Election approved an initiative measure ("Measure X") to change the zoning of the American Tin Cannery (ATC) to enhance the commercial viability of this area to provide for uses envisioned in the Land Use Plan and California Coastal Act. The City zoning code at that time did not allow for hotels, but Measure X included hotels as a use permitted in this zone. To implement Measure X, City Ordinance No. 16-009A (Attachment 1) was adopted by the City Council on May 18, 2016 which amended Chapter 23.31 of the City Municipal Code and added Chapter 23.31.025. Council approved a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the American Tin Cannery Hotel and Commercial Project on January 12, 2022; Agenda Report linked herein. The project is located on a 6-acre site just inland of Ocean View Boulevard between Dewey and Eardley. The project approved at that time consisted of a 225-room hotel-resort facility with 350,000 sq. ft. of floor area.
The City approved CDP was appealed to the California Coastal Commission ("Commission") by Coastal Commissioners Linda Escalante and Caryl Hart, Pacific Grove Coastal Watch, and community members: Kim and Thom Akeman, Anthony Ciani, Jane Haines, and Michelle Raine. The appeal raised issues regarding conformance with the City's Local Coastal Program provisions and Coastal Act including water supply, public access, low cost accommodations, and habitat and wildlife protections among others.
The Appeal Hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning April 11, 2024, in Long Beach, California. Please see the Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2). After two years of reviewing the record, Commission staff recommends the Commission make a finding of substantive issues and then approve the revised project with conditions.
The revised project has been agreed to by the applicants and includes the following key elements:
1. Reduction in rooms from 225 to 206
2. Reduction in size by 85,000 sq. ft.
3. Reduction in retail space
4. Includes a new public park and planned viewing area.
5. Direct access to a rooftop green area.
6. Public restroom.
7. The reduced scope addresses the water supply concern.
8. Provide lower-cost rooms for 18 rooms on a first come first served basis.
9. Construction of a 16 unit/64 bed group wing with 300 bed nights reserved for use by certain special needs youth groups.
Recommended conditions of approval of the revised project address:
1. Water Supply
2. Low-Cost Accommodations
3. Public Views/Community Character and Public Access
4. Habitat Resources
5. Archaeological/Cultural Resources
Conditions include those imposed by the City of Pacific Grove in its January 12, 2022 CDP.
The revised project with conditions revitalizes commercial properties adjacent to the Monterey Bay Aquarium providing economic benefit to the community. Commission conditions reinforce those imposed by the City to safeguard the environment.
The Commission finds that the proposed project as modified will not result in any significant environmental effects for which feasible mitigation measures have not been employed, consistent with CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A).
It is customary for cities who have been a part of the original project approval process to comment on the Commission's staff recommendation. Comments can be part of the Commission public record if submitted by April 5.
OPTIONS
1. Do not comment.
2. Provide the Mayor and City Manager with other directions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no direct financial impact resulting from written comment to the Coastal Commission. Should this project be approved, it would result in significant additional revenue for the City.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 16-009A
Attachment 2 - CC Staff Report
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
EMAIL: [email protected]
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
Th15b
Appeal Filed: 1/27/2022
Action Deadline: None
Staff: KK/MF/KV - SC
Staff Report: 3/22/2024
Hearing Date: 4/11/2024
STAFF REPORT
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE & CDP DETERMINATIONS
Appeal Number: A-3-PGR-22-0004
Applicant: Foursome Development Company
Appellants: Commissioners Linda Escalante and Caryl Hart, Pacific Grove Coast Watch, Kim Akeman, Thom Akeman, Anthony
Ciani, Jane Haines, and Michelle Raine
Local Government: City of Pacific Grove
Local Decision: Approved by the City of Pacific Grove City Council on January 12, 2022 (City Coastal Development Permit
Application Number 19-0363)
Project Location: Roughly 6-acre site just inland of Ocean View Boulevard between Dewey and Eardley Avenues and extending inland
to Central Avenue, including the Sloat Avenue public rightof-way, currently mostly occupied by the American Tin Cannery commercial building just downcoast of the
Monterey Bay Aquarium and Cannery Row, and just inland
of Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station, in the City of Pacific Grove near the border with the City of Monterey in Monterey County
Project Description: Partial demolition and a complete redevelopment and expansion of the existing American Tin Cannery and nearby buildings to create a new 225-room hotel resort with related development (e.g., two pools, a spa and fitness center, restaurants, banquet/meeting rooms, underground and
surface parking (some 290 spaces, including 255 valet
parking spaces), and approximately 11,000 square feet of retail uses), totaling some roughly 350,000 square feet of total floor area; vacation of portions of the Sloat Avenue A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
public street and portions of Ocean View Boulevard for
private hotel use; and related development.
Staff Recommendation: Substantial Issue Exists; Approval with Conditions
IMPORTANT HEARING PROCEDURAL NOTE
Please note that at the hearing for this item the Commission will not take testimony on staff’s substantial issue recommendation unless at least three Commissioners request it. Commissioners may ask questions of the Applicant, aggrieved persons (i.e., generally persons who participated in some way in the local permitting process), the Attorney General, the Executive Director, and their proxies/representatives prior to determining whether or not to take such testimony. If the Commission does decide to take such testimony, then it is generally limited to three minutes total per side (although the Commission’s Chair has the discretion to modify those time limits). Only the Applicant, aggrieved persons, the local government, and their proxies/representatives are allowed to testify during this substantial issue phase of the hearing. Other interested parties may submit comments in writing. If the Commission finds that the appeal raises a substantial issue, then the Commission takes jurisdiction over the underlying coastal development permit (CDP) application, and it will then review that application immediately following that determination (unless that portion of the hearing is postponed), at which time all persons are invited to testify. If the Commission finds that the appeal does not raise a substantial issue, then the local government CDP decision stands, and is thus final and effective.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
On January 12, 2022, the City of Pacific Grove City Council, overturning the City Planning Commission’s denial, approved a CDP for the development of a 225-room hotel-resort facility with over 350,000 square feet of total floor area at the roughly sixacre American Tin Cannery (ATC) site and on portions of public street rights-of-way near the shoreline of the Monterey Bay in Pacific Grove. The appeals contend that the City’s approval of the CDP raises questions regarding its consistency with City Local Coastal Program (LCP) provisions and Coastal Act public access provisions related to water supply, lower-cost accommodations, public access, public views and community character, habitat protection, and historic resources.
After thoroughly reviewing the local record in light of applicable Coastal Act and LCP provisions and the substantive issues raised, staff recommends that the Commission find that the appeals raise substantial issues with respect to such Coastal Act/LCP requirements, and thus that the Commission take jurisdiction over the CDP application for the proposed project. Staff further recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve a conditioned CDP for the hotel resort project that appropriately addresses the Coastal Act and LCP requirements applicable here.
To be clear, this proposed project is the culmination of over a decade of visioning and planning, with some start and stop moments along the way. Over the years, Commission staff had welcomed the concept of a new hotel at the ATC site, including to better activate it over the existing retail/commercial mix. In fact, when the LCP was A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
certified for the first time in 2020, this particular CDP application proposal was in its infancy, and thus part of City and Commission staff collaborations at that time focused on provisions specific to the ATC site and a potential project here. The site’s large size, and its conspicuous location adjacent to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail, and the City limits themselves, all serve to define it as a true ‘gateway’ site of immense importance to the City. It was therefore key to ensure that the LCP clearly circumscribed the goals, objectives, and requirements for this site to ensure that any proposed development here respects and responds to those needs.
However, as the Applicant unveiled the proposed project’s parameters, it became readily apparent to staff that the proposal was missing key components necessary for an approvable project consistent with applicable Coastal Act and LCP provisions. At a broad level, this was because the proposal appeared to oversubscribe the site, with issues emanating thereto (including related to water supply, public views and access, and lower-cost accommodations) unaddressed. Staff opined at various junctures to the City and Applicant on these points, including even ultimately advising the City Council prior to its CDP hearing in January 2022 not to take a CDP action at that time as the project did not appear Coastal Act and LCP consistent, and suggesting that it would be prudent to hold off on an action until relevant supporting materials and data could be developed in support of approving a project. The City Council ultimately did not heed that advice, and approved the CDP anyways, after which it was promptly appealed to the Commission.
As explained in detail in the Substantial Issue section of this report, that City CDP approval, in staff’s view, suffers from some key analytic problems related to a host of important coastal resource issues, leading to Coastal Act and LCP inconsistencies. For example, issues related to the Monterey Peninsula’s chronic water supply inadequacies were inadequately addressed by rote reliance on the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s water allocation procedures, lower-cost accommodations were deemed infeasible until the very last City Council meeting when some amount were then found to be feasible subject to a completely insufficient additional in-lieu mitigation fee, public access impacts were left unmitigated when the LCP requires such access to be maximized for additional public benefit, public views and community character did not appear to have been appropriately evaluated, and issues related to potential offsite construction impacts, including on adjacent sensitive offshore environments, were not sufficiently detailed nor protective, to name the main, but not all of the issues. To be sure, these are very detailed and complex issues on a host of core LCP and Coastal Act resource topics and concerns, and they were all insufficiently addressed. That fact, combined with the scope, magnitude, and overall importance of this site/project to the City, all necessarily took staff time to work through the issues, meet with various stakeholders, and ultimately work with the Applicant on project changes that respond to and respect the Coastal Act and LCP prescriptions for the site and a project of this nature. The end result of this process is the revised project as proposed, and as proposed to be conditioned, on de novo review.
The revised project generally maintains the overarching premise of the City-approved version, including that it is comprised of a resort hotel facility, but is generally smaller at some 206 units (down from 225, and a reduction of some 85,000 square feet of hotel A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
development) and it has abandoned certain elements (e.g., a reduction in retail space).
In its place, the project now includes new public access elements, including a new public park and plaza at the corner of Ocean View Boulevard, which also provides direct access to new a ‘living roof’ garden space open and available for public use and enjoyment with sweeping Monterey Bay views. These and other new access elements, including a new public restroom directly accessible from Dewey Avenue, along with the Commission’s typical suite of special conditions requiring such elements to be open and available for public use and enjoyment, and to do so in a visually compatible manner, all meet key Coastal Act and LCP requirements for this site. The reduced scope of the project also helps to better address public view and character concerns, as well as to more clearly align the project with the LCP’s water supply requirements, including ensuring that the project uses no more water than what the existing ATC site is currently physically equipped to use. On this point, water is a key limiting factor and constraint to new development on the Monterey Peninsula, where new development remains subject to significant restrictions largely emanating from a State Water Resources Control Board Cease and Desist Order that severely limits water withdrawals and what such water is allowed to be used for. Thus, necessarily, a large part of staff’s evaluation efforts focused on these water supply questions, including working directly with the numerous State and local entities involved in Peninsula water regulation to understand their perspectives and requirements. Ultimately, staff believes that the project herein, including as it is conditioned, best applies those understandings through a Coastal Act/LCP lens. Similarly, the project includes less grading and site disturbance, and now includes a much more robust set of biological monitoring protocols, including incorporating recommendations from local harbor seal groups as well from fellow resource agencies and scientific experts, to ensure that impacts are either avoided or promptly addressed, up to and including a stop-work order should specific adverse impacts be identified, where staff believes that such habitat precautions appropriately address potential habitat and related species concerns.
And, lastly, after much discussion and deliberation, the Applicant has proposed a significant lower-cost overnight accommodations mitigation package, all of which would be accommodated on-site and without the need for in-lieu mitigation fees. The package includes providing 18 lower-cost standard hotel rooms within the hotel itself, where the cost would be no more than $184 per night (inclusive of parking, resort fees, and any other hotel charges), where $184 is the current lower cost threshold as applied by the LCP. The package also includes a 16-unit/64-bed group wing providing for shared accommodations (with 4 beds per room that would share a bathroom between every two rooms), where the rates would be set at $85 per bed, which can serve as a lowercost option for single travelers and couples. And finally, the package also includes a commitment to group programming, whereby the Applicant proposes to bring lowerincome youth, school groups, and other underrepresented communities to the group wing for at least 300 bed-nights (i.e., one guest per bed per night) per year, 150 of which would be free and the remainder would be capped at lower cost rates. As explained in detail in this report, given the difficulty in building new overnight accommodation units of any kind in Pacific Grove, let alone lower cost units, it is important to take full advantage of these limited opportunities when such lower cost units and opportunities can be accommodated – and accommodated here on-site – including when the LCP explicitly identifies on-site lower cost accommodations as the A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
first priority. And this project also provides an important opportunity to provide for a mix of on-site accommodations to serve various users, including families, singles/couples, and groups, and should help to further public coastal access, lower-cost accommodation, and environmental justice objectives, and to help to truly work towards ‘access for all’.
In conclusion, staff acknowledges that this project has been controversial, with many supporters and opponents on either side for a variety of reasons, and further acknowledges that all such interested parties’ input to date has made for a much improved project in relation to the Coastal Act and the LCP compared to when it was approved locally. Staff also acknowledges the Applicant’s patience and willingness to thoughtfully engage on the issues, and notes that the Applicant is in full agreement with the staff recommendation. Ultimately, staff believes that the end result is a project that appropriately addresses Coastal Act and LCP requirements in a way that should provide a welcome and important addition to the City. As such, staff recommends the Commission approve a conditioned CDP for the revised project, for which the motions and resolutions to do so are found on page 7.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS............................................................................... 7 A. Substantial Issue Determination....................................................................... 7 B. CDP Determination............................................................................................. 7
2. STANDARD CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 8
3. SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................ 8
4. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.......................................................................... 26 A. Project Location ............................................................................................... 26 B. Project Description........................................................................................... 27 C. City of Pacific Grove CDP Approval ............................................................... 28 D. Appeal Procedures........................................................................................... 31 E. Summary of Appeal Contentions .................................................................... 32 F. Standard of Review .......................................................................................... 33 G. Substantial Issue Determination..................................................................... 33
1. Water Supply .................................................................................................. 33
2. Lower-Cost Accommodations ......................................................................... 42
3. Public Views/Community Character................................................................ 51
4. Public Access.................................................................................................. 55
5. Habitat Resources .......................................................................................... 61
6. Historic Resources.......................................................................................... 66
7. The “Five Substantial Issue” Factors .............................................................. 69 H. De Novo Coastal Development Permit Determination .................................. 71
1. Proposed Project ............................................................................................ 71
2. Water Supply .................................................................................................. 71
3. Lower-Cost Accommodations ......................................................................... 75
4. Public Views/Community Character and Public Access.................................. 80
5. Habitat Resources .......................................................................................... 84
6. Archaeological/Cultural Resources ................................................................. 85
7. Other............................................................................................................... 86 I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)................................................ 87
5. APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... 88 A. Substantive File Documents............................................................................ 88 B. Staff Contact with Agencies and Groups ....................................................... 88
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Project Location
Exhibit 2: Project Area Photos
Exhibit 3: City of Pacific Grove Final CDP Approval
Exhibit 4: Project Plans
Exhibit 5: Appeals of City CDP Action
Exhibit 6: Lower-Cost Accommodations In-Lieu Fee Assumptions/Calculations Exhibit 7: Coastal Commission Staff Comments on Local CDP Process/Action
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Substantial Issue Determination
Staff recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeals were filed. A finding of substantial issue would bring the CDP application for the proposed development under the jurisdiction of the Commission for a de novo hearing and action. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a NO vote on the following motion. Failure of this motion will result in a de novo hearing on the CDP application, and adoption of the following resolution and findings. Passage of this motion will result in a finding of no substantial issue and the local action will become final and effective. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal Number A-3-PGR22-0004 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeals have been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act, and I recommend a no vote.
Resolution to Find Substantial Issue: The Commission hereby finds that Appeal Number A-3-PGR-22-0004 presents a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeals have been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding consistency with the certified City of Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program and/or the public access provisions of the Coastal Act.
B. CDP Determination
Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve a coastal development permit for the proposed development. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a YES vote on the following motion. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the CDP as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit Number A-3-PGR-22-0004 pursuant to the staff recommendation, and I recommend a yes vote.
Resolution to Approve CDP: The Commission hereby approves Coastal Development Permit Number A-3-PGR-22-0004 and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned will be in conformity to with the City of Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program. Approval of the permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
1. STANDARD CONDITIONS
This permit is granted subject to the following standard conditions:
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid, and development shall not commence, until a copy of the permit, signed by the Permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time.
Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit.
5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the Permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.
2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
This CDP is granted subject to the following special conditions:
1. Revised Final Plans. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the Permittee shall submit two full size sets of Revised Final Plans to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Such Plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional or professionals (i.e., architect, surveyor, geotechnical engineer, etc.), shall be based on current professionally surveyed topographic elevations for the entire site, shall include a graphic scale, and shall be accompanied by documentation clearly demonstrating compliance with all aspects of this condition (e.g., plant provenance, lighting and glazing specifications, etc.). Such Plans shall be substantially in conformance with the proposed plans (titled American Tin Cannery (ATC) Hotel & Commercial Project, prepared September 8, 2021 and updated December 8, 2021, by Hart Howerton and John C. Hill, A.I.A., dated received in the Coastal Commission’s Central Coast District Office on January 20, 2022 as part of the City’s Final Local Action Notice, and with such proposed modifications, all as identified in Exhibit 4), but shall be modified to achieve compliance with this condition, including that such Plans shall include the following:
a. Ocean View Boulevard Frontage. The public sidewalk along Ocean View Boulevard, including the elevated portion adjacent to the hotel structure, shall be open and available for public use and enjoyment.
b. Parking. At least 18 spaces in the underground parking garage and 5 spaces A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
reserved for ATC guests in the Central Avenue lot shall have EV charging stations, and 45 spaces in the underground parking garage and 12 spaces reserved for ATC guests in the Central Avenue lot shall be EV-ready, or as otherwise required under the California Building Code. Two spaces in the Central Avenue lot and 6 in the underground lot shall be ADA accessible, or as otherwise required under the ADA.
c. Design. All development shall incorporate architectural details and varied materials to reduce the apparent mass of the development. Building facades should be broken up by rooflines, offsets, and other such building elements in order to avoid a box-like appearance. Variations in wall planes, detailing, materials, and siding shall be used to create interest and promote as small a scale appearance as possible, where continuity for the overall development shall be assured, while also providing for some variations, including between adjacent buildings. Roof styles and roof lines shall match, unless differences better protect public views. Exterior development shall complement building development, and help to provide visual transition to taller shapes. All surfaces shall use or effectively mimic natural materials and colors sited and designed to help reduce perceived mass and scale, and to best integrate seamlessly into the coastal environment and required landscaping at maturity; garish and/or bright colors shall be prohibited.
d. Greywater System. All greywater system components (including collection, storage, treatment, and redistribution infrastructure) shall be clearly identified, and only minor irrigation components shall be allowed to be aboveground/visible, and only if hidden from public view. The graywater system shall be accompanied by evidence that all applicable authorities (including but not limited to the Monterey County Department of Environmental Health) have signedoff/approved the configuration and use of the system. e. Water Conservation. All interior and exterior water-using fixtures, appliances, equipment, irrigation infrastructure, and other such components (e.g., faucets, toilets, showers, ice machines, dishwashers, irrigation etc.) shall be certified for low-flow (or ultra-low flow) and high-water efficiency use, and water conservation measures (e.g., easily accessible shut off valves, recirculating pumps, drip and/or micro-spray irrigation, etc.) shall be applied to the maximum feasible extent. f. Landscaping. All existing landscaping shall be removed and new landscaping shall be planted and maintained in all site areas not covered in hardscape, as well as on the ‘living roof’ components, where such landscaping shall use species (at maturity) and topographic relief that can provide for screening and softening of all development in public views as much as possible. All such landscaping shall consist of low water-using, locally-sourced, native, noninvasive species appropriate to the Pacific Grove shoreline area, and shall be maintained in a litter-free, weed-free, and healthy growing condition (including through replanting and/or remediation to achieve consistency with this condition).
No plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the California Native Plant Society, the California Invasive Plant Council, or as may be so identified A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
from time to time by the State of California, and no plant species listed as a “noxious weed” by the State of California or the U.S. Federal Government shall be planted or allowed to naturalize or persist on the site. g. Irrigation. All irrigation systems shall limit potable water use to the maximum extent feasible, including via using greywater as much as possible and using irrigation measures designed to facilitate reduced water use overall (e.g., microspray and drip irrigation, weather-based irrigation controllers, etc.). Irrigation system components shall be hidden from view as much as possible. h. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be wildlife-friendly, shall use lamps that minimize the blue end of the visible spectrum, and shall be limited to the maximum extent feasible to the minimum lighting necessary for safe ingress, egress, and use purposes, where all trail lighting shall be mounted on bollards (or equivalent) no greater than 3 feet tall. All lighting (exterior and interior) shall be sited and designed so that it limits the amount of light or glare visible from both public viewing and natural (e.g., beaches, bluffs, offshore, etc.) areas to the maximum extent feasible (i.e., through using the lowest luminosity possible (no more than 60 watts (incandescent) or equivalent), directing lighting downward and away from public and natural areas, shielding bulbs/light sources from view, prohibiting lighting that blinks or flashes, etc.). All other lighting not meeting such parameters shall be prohibited.
i. Windows and Other Surfaces. All windows shall be non-glare glass, all other surfaces shall be similarly treated to avoid reflecting light, and all windows shall be bird-safe (i.e., windows shall be frosted, partially frosted, or otherwise treated with visually permeable barriers that are designed to prevent bird strikes). j. Utilities. All utilities (e.g., sewer, water, stormwater, gas, electrical, telephone, data, etc.) shall be clearly identified (including and the manner in which they will connect to offsite distribution networks) and shall be located underground, including that all existing overhead utilities on the site shall be removed. k. Stormwater and Drainage. All stormwater, drainage, and related water quality infrastructure (e.g., pervious pavements, etc.), with preference given to natural BMPs (e.g., bioswales, vegetated filter strips, etc.), shall be clearly identified.
Such infrastructure shall provide that all project area stormwater and drainage is filtered and treated to remove expected pollutants prior to discharge and/or direction to offsite areas; shall retain runoff from the project onsite to the maximum extent feasible (e.g., through the use of pervious areas, percolation pits, engineered storm drain systems, etc.); shall be sized and designed to accommodate runoff from the site produced from each and every storm event up to and including the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event; shall, in extreme storm situations (i.e., greater than the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event storm) where such runoff cannot be adequately accommodated on-site through the project’s stormwater and drainage infrastructure, ensure that any excess runoff is conveyed off-site in a non-erosive manner; and shall be permanently operated and maintained (where all maintenance parameters for such infrastructure, A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
including based on manufacturers recommendations, shall be provided), where all such operation and maintenance activities shall be documented and shall be provided upon Executive Director request.
l. Signs. All signs and related project components shall be identified (including details showing their location, materials, design, and text), and all such sign development shall be sited and designed: (1) to limit the number and visibility of all signs; (2) to minimize visibility in public views; (3) to seamlessly integrate into the surrounding environment to the maximum extent feasible (e.g., using natural materials, earth tone colors and graphics, etc.); (4) to limit lighting as much as possible (and be consistent with the lighting requirements specified in Special Condition 1(h) at a minimum); and (5) to be subordinate to the coastal setting. m. Site Access. Any areas of the site for which specific requirements for access are necessary shall be identified (i.e., employee only, paying customers only, overnight guests only, etc.), where other areas shall be allowed general public access (see also Special Condition 4 for additional detail). n. Public Access Requirements. All public access areas (including but not limited to general public access to the parking lot, restroom, rooftop garden (and access thereto), interpretive center, courtyard, paths, etc.) and amenities (e.g., bench seating, bike racks, signs, educational kiosk, bike share/rentals, etc.) associated with the approved Public Access Management Plan (see Special Condition 4) shall be identified.
o. Construction Requirements. All construction requirements associated with the Approved Construction Plan (see Special Condition 2) shall be identified as “Required Construction Measures”.
All requirements above and all requirements of the approved Revised Final Plans shall be enforceable components of this CDP, and the Permittee shall undertake development in accordance with this condition and the approved Revised Final Plans.
2. Construction Plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the Permittee shall submit two copies of a Construction Plan to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Such Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following:
a. Construction Areas. All construction activity, staging, storage, and access corridor areas shall be clearly identified in site plan view, where all such areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible, and shall be sited and designed to have the least impact on coastal resources (including by using onsite areas for these purposes unless it is impossible to do so). Construction, including but not limited to construction activities and materials and equipment storage, shall be prohibited outside of such defined construction areas. Special attention shall be given to siting and designing construction areas in order to minimize impacts on the ambiance and aesthetic values of the public access trail opposite Ocean View Boulevard, including but not limited to public views across the site.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
b. Construction Methods. All construction methods to be used, including all methods to be used to keep the construction areas separate from public recreational use areas as much as possible (including using unobtrusive temporary fencing or equivalent measures to delineate construction areas), and including verification that operation and storage of equipment and materials will not, to the maximum extent feasible, significantly degrade public access and public views during construction, shall be clearly identified. Special attention shall be given to using construction methods that will minimize impacts on the ambiance and aesthetic values of the public access trail opposite Ocean View Boulevard, including but not limited to public views across the site. c. Construction Timing/Lighting. Construction shall be prohibited during weekends from Memorial Day weekend until Labor Day, state holidays, and nondaytime hours (i.e., from one-hour after sunset to one-hour before sunrise), and lighting of construction areas affecting public access and public view areas shall be prohibited, unless due to extenuating circumstances the Executive Director authorizes such work or lighting in writing, and subject to all measures determined by the Executive Director to be necessary to ensure maximum coastal resource protection.
d. Construction BMPs. All erosion control/water quality best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction to protect coastal water quality shall be clearly identified, including at a minimum all of the following:
1. Runoff Protection. Silt fences, straw wattles, or equivalent apparatus shall be installed at the perimeter of the construction areas to prevent constructionrelated runoff and sediment from discharging from the construction areas or entering into storm drains or otherwise offsite or towards the beach and ocean. Special attention shall be given to appropriate filtering and treating of all runoff, and all drainage points, including storm drains, shall be equipped with appropriate construction-related containment, filtration, and treatment equipment.
2. Equipment BMPs. Equipment washing, refueling, and servicing shall take place at an appropriate on-site (or offsite and more inland, if more protective of coastal resources), hard-surfaced, level location where collection of materials is facilitated to help contain leaks and spills of hazardous materials to the project site.
3. Good Housekeeping BMPs. The construction site shall maintain good construction housekeeping controls and procedures at all times (e.g., clean up all leaks, drips, and other spills immediately; keep materials covered and out of the rain, including covering exposed piles of soil and wastes; dispose of all wastes properly, place trash receptacles on site for that purpose, and cover open trash receptacles during wet weather; remove all construction debris from the site; establish a hazardous materials spill response protocol, and maintain appropriate materials to address spills; etc.).
4. Erosion and Sediment Controls. All erosion and sediment controls shall be A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
in place prior to the commencement of construction as well as at the end of each workday.
e. Marine Wildlife Protection. All marine wildlife protection requirements associated with the approved Marine Wildlife Protection Plan (see Special Condition 3) shall be identified as “Required Marine Wildlife Protection Measures”.
f. Nesting Bird Protection. Tree removal, pruning, and/or chipping shall not occur between November 1st and July 31st to accommodate harbor seal pupping season and the majority of bird nesting season. Should tree work occur during the months of August or September, a qualified biologist, approved by the Executive Director, shall survey all trees on site for active bird nests, no sooner than one week before work begins. Should a nest be identified, a 300 foot buffer shall be delineated surrounding the nest in which no work may occur until the nest is abandoned. Should a raptor nest be identified, the buffer shall be increased to 500 feet.
g. Archaeological/Tribal Cultural Resource Protection. All archaeological/tribal cultural resource protection requirements identified in Special Condition 10 shall be identified as “Required Cultural Resource Protection Measures”. h. Property Owner Consent. Clear evidence indicating that the owners of any properties on which construction activities are to take place, including properties to be crossed in accessing the site, consent to such use of their properties and subject to the terms and conditions of this CDP shall be provided. i. Construction Site Documents. Copies of the signed CDP and the approved Construction Plan shall be maintained in a conspicuous location at the construction job site at all times, and such copies shall be available for public review on request. All persons involved with the construction shall be briefed on the content and meaning of the CDP and the approved Construction Plan, as well as the public review requirements applicable to them, prior to commencement of construction.
j. Construction Coordinator. A construction coordinator shall be designated to be the main point of contact during construction should questions arise regarding the construction (in case of both regular inquiries and emergencies), and the coordinator’s contact information (i.e., address, phone numbers, email address, etc.) including, at a minimum, a telephone number and an email that will be made available 24 hours a day for the duration of construction, shall be conspicuously posted at the job site where such contact information is readily visible from public viewing areas while still minimizing impacts to public views, along with indication that the construction coordinator should be contacted in the case of questions regarding the construction (in case of both regular inquiries and emergencies).
The construction coordinator shall record the contact information (i.e., address, email, phone number, etc.) and nature of all complaints received regarding the construction, and shall investigate complaints and take remedial action, if necessary, within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint or inquiry. All complaints A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
and all actions taken in response shall be summarized and provided to the Executive Director on at least a weekly basis during construction. The construction coordinator shall have regular contact with the approved Biological Monitor specified in Special Condition 3.
k. Construction Specifications. All construction specifications and materials shall include appropriate penalty provisions that require remediation for any work done inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the CDP.
l. Notification. The Permittee shall notify planning staff of the Coastal Commission’s Central Coast District Office at least 3 working days in advance of commencement of construction, and immediately upon completion of construction.
The Permittee shall undertake construction in accordance with the approved Construction Plan, and all requirements above and all requirements of the approved Construction Plan shall be enforceable components of this CDP.
3. Marine Wildlife Protection. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the Permittee shall submit two copies of a Marine Wildlife Protection Plan to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Such Plan is intended to protect marine wildlife, predominantly harbor seals and black oystercatchers, that congregate on and offshore near the approved development site via implementing protective measures during construction as well as monitoring such wildlife for signs of distress and taking action to protect such wildlife at such times. Such Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following:
a. Protection Areas. The protection areas shall at a minimum include local harbor seal haul-out/rookeries at West Beach, Fisher Beach, and Fifth Street, and extending at least 10 meters offshore (see Exhibit 1).
b. Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor or monitors (Biological Monitor), selected by the Permittee and approved by the Executive Director, shall be present during all construction activities to ensure that wildlife in the protection areas is not adversely impacted as identified in this condition. The approved Biological Monitor(s) must have significant experience with marine mammals and is expected to be a representative from the already-established community of experts in the field of California marine mammal biology, and ideally harbor seals specifically.
c. Disturbance Avoidance Measures. All measures that will be applied to avoid (and where unavoidable to minimize) disturbance to birds, marine mammals, and other marine wildlife within the protection areas shall be clearly identified (e.g., visual blinds, sensitive scheduling/timing for high noise events, quiet construction methods such as sound barriers, equipment alarm dampening, etc.), where all such measures shall minimize noise and other disturbance to the protection areas as much as possible, and where construction sound remains at or below 90 decibels at the edge of the protection area nearest the construction site. At a minimum: (1) construction activity, staging, storage, and access corridor areas A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
shall be located as far from the protection areas as possible; (2) trucks and other heavy machinery transport shall avoid travel via Wave Street and Ocean View Boulevard as much as possible; and (3) tree removal, tree bucking, tree chipping, lot demolition, and sub-grade construction, including all major site grading and excavation, as well as the use of drones seaward of Sloat Avenue, shall be prohibited between November 1st and July 31st (with such activities potentially allowed during November and December if approved by the Executive Director and with evidence that sensitive marine wildlife are not present at nor avoiding nearby beaches and areas immediately offshore).
d. Harbor Seal Disturbance Definitions. Harbor seal disturbance shall be considered to have occurred when demonstrated by behaviors including, but not limited to: (1) sustained head raises and/or alerts; (2) quick turns in the direction of sound sources; (3) rapid movement down the beach toward the water; (4) rapid movement and/or diving into the water; (5) congregation away from sound sources; (6) feeding and/or nursing disruption; (7) alarm calls; (8) pup miscarriages;1 (9) avoidance of areas due to previous disturbances; and (10) any other behavior which, in the best professional opinion of the Biological Monitors, suggests adverse behavioral disturbance.
e. Monitoring Type/Timing. Biological Monitors shall monitor the protection areas for both behaviors and construction sound (with appropriate instrumentation) for the duration of construction, where such monitoring shall be in person (required during harbor seal pupping season (February 1st (or earlier if pregnant females and/or pups are observed earlier than February 1st) - June 30th) and during any demolition and sub-grade construction) or via remote means2 (allowed during pre-pupping season (November 1st - January 31st)), or either in person or remote (during molting season (July 1st - August 31st) or the months of September and October). Monitoring may be allowed to be remote and/or of more limited frequency outside of the harbor seal pupping season (i.e., reduced) by the Executive Director (in consultation with Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) and NOAA Fisheries staff) if monitoring demonstrates that the average numbers of seals in the protection areas are comparable to historical numbers, suggesting no active disturbance; and if there is one continuous 30-day period when construction is occurring and there has been no marine wildlife disturbance. Conversely, and subject to the same consultation parameters, the Executive Director can also return any reduced state monitoring to the prior type and frequency requirements for good cause or during sensitive seasons. f. Monitoring Data. At least prior to commencement of construction, the Biological 1 Miscarriages shall be documented when an obvious indicator such as an intact placenta or fetus is observed. When it is uncertain what happened to a pup, the “disappearance” will not be counted as a miscarriage.
2 If the Permittee and/or the Biological Monitors intend to use remote monitoring when it is allowed, then all such measures shall be clearly identified, including the locations and types of high-definition cameras and decibel meters to be used. In all cases, video and sound recordings shall be available to any regulatory agency by request.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
Monitors shall collect data on daily site conditions, count of each species, time of observation, behaviors, disturbances, decibel levels, and any other relevant data to assess the condition of the observed animals at that time. Upon construction commencement and for all other monitoring, the Biological Monitors shall collect the same data, and shall watch for any changes in harbor seal behavior, including documenting any construction-related disturbance. Disturbances, as well as mothers actively in labor and birthing, shall be recorded on the daily/weekly log. The Biological Monitors shall inspect the protection area and identify the number of harbor seals and other marine life present and their behavior/activity at least 30 minutes prior to construction staging for the day, at midday (between 10 AM and 2 PM, when peak occupation is common), and again at the completion of construction activities for the day. If there are no seals present at the morning check, monitoring shall not be until the midday check. g. Reporting. The Biological Monitors shall summarize and submit all monitoring information to the Executive Director and other appropriate resource agencies (e.g., MBNMS, NOAA Fisheries, etc.) on a weekly basis.
h. Stop-Work Authority and Notification. The Biological Monitors, whether observing remotely or in person, shall have the authority to stop construction activity based on their observations regarding potential adverse impacts to marine wildlife, including if: (1) construction-related noise produces measured decibel levels at or above 90 dBrms while seals or other marine wildlife are present in the protection areas; and/or (2) wildlife disturbances or disturbance behaviors are observed that are attributable to project construction activities.
When a work stoppage is required, construction activities shall be paused until disturbance behaviors cease and marine wildlife resumes resting along the shoreline as it was prior to disturbance. The Biological Monitors shall work with the Permittee’s designee to determine the source of disturbance and take steps to immediately adjust best management practices so that future disturbance is avoided or minimized (e.g., implementing the use of sound curtains, moving work to another area of the site, etc.). If the activities that are causing the disturbance behaviors cannot be immediately mitigated, and in the best professional opinion of the Biological Monitors: 1) constitute harm and are adversely affecting harbor seal behavior/physiology; and 2) are a result of project construction activity, then the Permittee shall cease work and promptly notify the Executive Director, as well as MBNMS and NOAA Fisheries. Work may not resume until the Executive Director, in consultation with MBNMS and NOAA Fisheries, allows work to recommence, including if recommencement is subject to modified and/or new mitigation measures (e.g., re-implementation of in-person monitoring, mitigation for impacts to marine wildlife, a CDP amendment, an incidental take permit, etc.).
The Permittee shall undertake construction in accordance with the approved Marine Wildlife Protection Plan, and all requirements above and all requirements of the approved Marine Wildlife Protection Plan shall be enforceable components of this CDP.
4. Public Access Management Plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
Permittee shall submit two copies of a Public Access Management Plan to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Such Plan shall clearly describe the manner in which general public access associated with the approved development is to be provided and managed, with the objective of maximizing public access and recreational use of all available general public access areas (see Special Condition 1) as well as all specifically identified public access areas (including the parking lot, restroom, rooftop garden (and access thereto), interpretive center, courtyard, paths, etc.) and all related areas and public access amenities (e.g., bench seating, bike racks, signs, educational kiosk, bike share/rentals, etc.) as described in this condition. Such Plan shall be consistent with the approved Revised Final Plans, and shall at a minimum include the following:
a. Public Access Areas and Amenities. All public access areas and amenities, including all of the areas and amenities described above and in this condition, shall be clearly identified as such (including with hatching and closed polygons so that it is clear what areas are available for such public access use). At least one public restroom shall be provided with access directly from the street (i.e., not within the hotel’s interior), and the public roof garden shall have at least one staircase provide access directly from the street. The rooftop garden and other appropriate access areas shall provide publicly-available amenities, such as picnic tables, viewing benches/sitting areas, enclosed trash and recycling receptacles, doggie mitt stations, and/or other such publicly-available amenities commensurate with expected use and in a manner that maximizes their public utility and enjoyment.
b. Public Access Signs/Materials. All signs and any other project elements that will be used to facilitate, manage, and provide public access to the approved development shall be clearly identified, including all public education/interpretation features that will be provided on the site (i.e., educational displays, interpretive signage, etc.). Sign details showing the location, materials, design, and text of all public access signs shall be provided. The signs shall be sited and designed so as to provide clear information without impacting public views and site character. At least two interpretive panel/installations shall be provided, where at least one shall interpret the former American Tin Cannery Building, and at least one shall interpret the nearby harbor seal rookery. Signs shall include the California Coastal Trail and California Coastal Commission emblems and recognition of the Coastal Commission’s role in providing public access at this location. All signs shall be sited and designed to maximize their utility and minimize their impacts on public views.
c. Public Access Disruption Prohibited. No development or use of the property governed by this CDP may disrupt and/or degrade public access or recreational use of any public access areas and amenities associated with the approved development, such as by setting aside areas for private uses or installing barriers to public access (e.g., furniture, planters, temporary structures, private use signs, fences, barriers, ropes, etc.). The public use areas shall be maintained consistent with the approved Plan and in a manner that maximizes public use and enjoyment.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
d. Public Access Parking. A minimum of 20 full-sized parking spaces located at the parking lot on 124 Central Avenue shall be provided and maintained for general public use only, where such spaces shall be clearly demarcated (i.e., via physical separation, signs, stencils, etc.) and available 24 hours a day. One such space shall be ADA accessible (or as otherwise required under the ADA), 2 spaces shall provide EV charging stations (or as otherwise required under the California Building Code), and 5 shall be EV-ready (or as otherwise required under the California Building Code). Such parking spaces shall be available free of charge between the hours of 9am and 3pm with a 3-hour limit for any one vehicle during that time (the ADA spaces shall be free of charge with no time limits), and between 3pm and 9am, the hourly rate shall be no more than the rates of the on-street metered parking spaces along Ocean View Boulevard, Eardley Avenue, and Dewey Avenue. Employee and guest parking, including via valet parking, is prohibited in such parking spaces.
e. Public Access Use Hours. All public access areas and amenities shall be available to the general public 24 hours a day, with the exception of the living roof and public restroom, which can be closed to general public use at night (i.e., one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise). All public access areas shall be free of charge (other than the allowed parking fees identified above). f. Public Access Provided. All public access areas and amenities associated with the approved development shall be constructed and available for public use as soon as possible, but no later than concurrently with the certificate of hotel occupancy.
g. Public Access Areas and Amenities Maintained. All of the public access areas and amenities shall be constructed in a structurally sound manner and maintained consistent with the terms and conditions of this CDP, including through ongoing repair and maintenance of all public access improvements. The public use areas shall be maintained consistent with the approved Public Access Enhancement Plan and in a manner that maximizes public use and enjoyment.
All requirements above and all requirements of the approved Public Access Management Plan shall be enforceable components of this CDP, and the Permittee shall undertake development in accordance with this condition and the approved Public Access Management Plan.
5. Water Use Limits. Potable water use at the site shall be limited to no more than
18.53 acre-feet per year (AFY), where the water that is used to support the site from off-site (i.e., laundry services, etc.) shall be considered on-site use. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, the Permittee shall submit clear evidence (including at a minimum written evidence of concurrence from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD)) to the Executive Director for review and written approval demonstrating that all of the uses and facilities on the site, including everything provided for in the approved Revised Final Plans (see Special Condition 1) will be under this potable water use threshold. In addition, each year for the first five years after occupancy, and once again 10 years after occupancy, the Permittee shall A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
submit to the Executive Director evidence of the site’s actual potable water usage.
Such reporting shall include monthly breakdowns and shall confirm that the actual potable water usage is within the site’s maximum allocation of 18.53 AFY. If any such report indicates that actual potable water usage is greater than 18.53 AFY, then the Permittee shall coordinate with the Executive Director, as well as the MPWMD, the City of Pacific Grove, and other relevant entities to develop a potable water use compliance plan designed to reduce potable water use to no more than
18.53 AFY. In such a case, annual reporting shall continue for at least three additional years (i.e., in addition to the five-years of annual reports and the ten-year report) or until the project’s water usage is within the 18.53 AFY cap as documented in two consecutive annual reports, whichever is later.
6. Provision of Lower-Cost Overnight Accommodations. The Permittee shall provide lower-cost rooms consistent with the provisions of this condition that follow. a. Minimum On-Site Requirements. The Permittee shall provide at least 18 standard double-occupancy hotel rooms3 where the cost to rent such rooms overnight shall not at any time exceed the lower-cost threshold as defined in the Pacific Grove LCP as of 2024 and may be modified by the CPI yearly.4 The Permittee shall also provide at least 16 hostel rooms in the proposed group/shared accommodations wing (i.e., the ‘Group Wing’), which shall include 4 beds per room (twin size or larger) and may include shared bathroom facilities between rooms (where at most two such rooms may share a bathroom, and all such bathrooms are full sized), where the cost to rent each such bed in each room shall not at any time exceed $85 (which may be modified by the CPI yearly). All such rooms shall be at least 250 square feet, and the above costs shall be inclusive of all service and other fees (e.g., parking, cleaning, resort, administrative) but exclusive of any government-mandated fees (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy taxes). The Permittee may provide more lower-cost on-site rooms than the minimum identified herein. All such rooms and related facilities (e.g., entrances, common areas) shall be effectively integrated into the overall hotel layout in a way that maximizes their utility, shall be clearly identified on the Revised Final Plans (see Special Condition 1), and all users of such rooms shall have access to all the same hotel amenities as all other hotel guests. b. Programming. For a minimum of 300 guest nights per year (i.e., one person staying one night), the ‘Group Wing’ shall be available and can be used for lowand no-cost accommodations for groups, the intent of which is to provide access to the coast to: (1) underserved communities (such as lower-income communities, communities of color, and other communities that have been historically marginalized and face greater barriers to coastal access); (2) school groups, prioritizing those school groups from underserved communities; and (3) other entities and groups similar to the first two, including groups that have faced barriers to accessing coastal outdoor spaces and outdoor recreation 3 Where each such room shall have either one or two beds sized at least as large as a queen or two twins, respectively, and a full-sized bathroom.
4 As of 2024, such lower-cost rate is $184 per hotel room per night.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
opportunities. Use of the Group Wing in this manner shall be free to participants for at least 150 of the 300 guest nights of programming per year, and shall be lower cost otherwise (where the cost to rent such rooms overnight shall not at any time exceed the lower-cost threshold as defined in the Pacific Grove LCP as of 2024 and may be modified by the CPI yearly).5 The annual monitoring report specified in subsection (d) below shall include a detailed analysis of the previous year’s programming (including the groups and number of people served, the rates charged, the number of free stays, etc.), and shall include other information that can help to assess the effectiveness of the program in carrying out its objectives. The report shall also specify the programming efforts for the upcoming year, and any relevant changes necessary to improve upon its effectiveness.
c. Marketing/Engagement Plan. The Permittee shall actively promote and publicize the availability of the lower-cost on-site rooms, including specifically to underserved communities such as lower-income communities, communities of color, and other communities that have been historically marginalized and face greater barriers to coastal access. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the Permittee shall provide a Lower-Cost Accommodations Marketing and Engagement Plan to the Executive Director for review and written approval, where such Plan shall at a minimum provide for the following:
1. Outreach. All measures and avenues to be used to advertise, increase awareness of, and facilitate use of the lower-cost on-site rooms shall be clearly identified. Promotional methods shall include, but are expected to not be limited to: resort websites, press releases, and calendar listings; local media (e.g., Monterey Herald, Salinas Californian) and ads on radio (e.g., local radio stations and others); print ads; social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter/X, and Instagram); and contacts with community organizations who may be able to help facilitate awareness (e.g., non-profits, environmental justice groups, labor unions, recipients of public benefits programs (by coordinating with local program administrators)) as well as schools. The Plan shall identify sample language to be used in describing the availability and price for the lower-cost on-site rooms (where said language shall be required to be consistent with the terms and conditions of this CDP), and shall provide a schedule for each type of outreach, with the goal being to reach as many potential users as possible, including audiences beyond the City of Pacific Grove that might not normally be reached through traditional and local means (e.g., communities such as Watsonville, Marina, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Castroville, Prunedale, Salinas). All materials shall acknowledge the California Coastal Commission’s role in providing the lower-cost on-site rooms.
2. Non-English Languages Provided. All outreach described in this condition shall include a language-access element inclusive of non-English languages spoken in the targeted communities, including but not limited to Spanish, 5 As of 2024, such lower-cost rate is $184 per room per night.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
tailored to be culturally relevant, and written in plain language to help prevent educational and cultural barriers to access to the lower-cost rooms.
3. Monitoring. The Plan shall describe how the Permittee will monitor and track the Plan’s execution so that the Permittee and the Coastal Commission can note the effectiveness of the Plan and make changes as needed. d. Reporting. The Permittee shall provide an annual report (with the first report due by December 31st of the first year of project occupancy, and subsequent reports due by on December 31st of subsequent years) to the Executive Director for review and written approval that provides clear evidence of the marketing and operation of the lower-cost rooms (including in relation to Group Wing programming) in compliance with all requirements of this condition, including sufficient detail to demonstrate the occupancy of the lower- cost rooms, the rates charged, and the implementation of the approved Lower- Cost Accommodations Marketing and Engagement Plan meet all requirements herein (where the latter shall at least describe all outreach efforts, with samples of outreach materials; all implementation challenges and successes; and all feedback and public comments received, and any responses to same), and recommendations for additional and/or modified measures to enhance awareness, use, and public utility of the lower-cost on-site rooms, including related programming. Every third such annual report shall also include an audit performed by an independent auditing company evaluating compliance with this condition.
All requirements above and all requirements of all above Executive Director approved plans/materials shall be enforceable components of this CDP, and the Permittee shall undertake development in accordance with this condition and all such approved plans/materials.
7. General Occupancy Requirements. By acceptance of this CDP, the Permittee acknowledges and agrees, on behalf of itself and all successors and assigns, that:
a. Hotel Length of Stay Provisions. All overnight rooms shall be open and available for rental to the general public. Rooms shall not be rented to any individual, family, or group for more than 29 consecutive days, and not for more than 14 days between the Friday of Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day inclusive. No individual ownership or long-term occupancy of hotel rooms shall be allowed.
b. Conversion Prohibited. This CDP authorizes the construction and operation of a traditional hotel-style overnight product for transient occupancy only. The conversion of any of the overnight rooms to limited use overnight visitor accommodation units (e.g., timeshare, fractional ownership, etc.) or to full-time occupancy condominium units or to any other units with use arrangements that differ from the approved development shall be prohibited.
8. Transportation Demand Management Plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the Permittee shall submit two copies of a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Such Plan shall A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
maximize the amount of employees and guests that travel to and from the hotel via non-single-occupant vehicle means (including through use of shared vehicles/carpooling, transit, bicycle/pedestrian means, etc.), and the Permittee shall actively encourage employee and guest participation in such programs and means of travel. Such Plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall at a minimum include the following:
a. Ride Share. A ride sharing/carpooling program shall be offered to all employees, and the Permittee shall schedule shifts to benefit such program and shall offer coordination services free of charge. A commuter information area that is centrally located and accessible to all employees shall be provided in which employees are provided information on available transportation alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle (i.e., current maps, routes and schedules for public transit, ridesharing match lists, available employee incentives, ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter-oriented organizations, etc.). b. Transit Reimbursement/Stipend. A public transit fare reimbursement program shall be offered to all employees, and the Permittee shall provide a stipend to employees who use a non-single occupancy vehicle to access work (such as the bus or train). The transit reimbursement shall be a daily, direct cash subsidy equal to 100% of the value of the applicable monthly regional transit pass divided by 20, to account for a 40-hour maximum work week (resulting in a maximum of 20 work days per month). The stipend shall be an at least quarterly, direct cash subsidy available solely for employees who do not use a single-occupancy vehicle and do not park within a mile of the site at least 51% of their yearly work hours. If an employee is eligible to receive both the transit reimbursement and the stipend, the Permittee shall offer the employee the greater of the two incentives, but is not required to provide both. Posters, brochures and registration materials associated with the program shall be available to employees at all times (including in the aforementioned commuter information area), and employees shall be informed of the program upon new employee orientation and at least annually thereafter.
c. Pedestrian/Bicycle Travel. Bicycle parking and shower/locker facilities shall be provided free of charge for all employees who walk/jog and/or ride bicycles to and from the workplace. Bicycle parking facilities shall be secured from the general public, shall be enclosed on all sides, and shall be capable of protecting bicycles from inclement weather (e.g., bicycle lockers, rooms, cages, etc.). The Permittee shall provide, to the maximum extent possible, communal bicycles and/or non-motorized vehicles for employee use for work-related activities that may be accomplished without a motorized vehicle.
d. Guests. Measures to reduce the need for vehicular use by hotel guests (e.g., shuttles to and from the Monterey Regional Airport, free bicycles for hotel guests, etc.) shall be provided.
All requirements above and all requirements of the approved Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be enforceable components of this CDP, and the Permittee A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
shall undertake development in accordance with this condition and the approved Transportation Demand Management Plan.
9. Plastic Reduction Program. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, the Permittee shall submit two copies of a Plastics Reduction Program to the Executive Director for review and written approval. Such Program shall minimize, to the maximum extent possible, the use of single-use plastics in all aspects of hotel operations, including as part of hotel room occupancy, as part of conferences, restaurant/bar operations, etc.. At a minimum, the Program shall identify/include the following provisions: educational signage for staff and guests promoting and encouraging reusable items instead of single-use plastics; maximizing use of reusable foodware for all dining purposes (for dinnerware, drinkware, silverware, and ramekins/containers), and prohibiting the following items: plastic straws (and allowing only reusable straws, paper straws, or straws made from naturally occurring materials, and only upon request), Styrofoam, plastic bags, plastic bottles, and plastic single-use shampoo/conditioner/lotion bottles in hotel rooms. The Program shall provide water bottle refill stations (at a minimum in the lobby, conference area, pool area, and any other high-use areas).
To the maximum extent possible, only biodegradable or compostable materials for single-use products shall be employed.
10.Protection of Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources. The Permittee shall undertake the approved project in compliance with the following measures to protect archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources to the maximum extent feasible.
a. Notification. At least one month prior to commencement of any grounddisturbing construction activities, the Permittee shall (1) notify the representatives of Native American Tribes listed on an updated Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list, including but not necessarily limited to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation (OCEN); (2) invite all Tribal representatives on that list to be present and to monitor ground-disturbing activities; and (3) arrange for any invited Tribal representative that requests to monitor and/or a qualified archaeological monitor to be present to observe project activities with the potential to impact archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources. b. Monitoring. A qualified, locally experienced archaeologist and a tribal monitor, approved by relevant tribe(s), shall be on site to monitor all activities with the potential to impact archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources, including all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall have experience monitoring for archaeological resources of the local area during excavation projects, be competent to identify significant resource types, and be aware of recommended tribal procedures for the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural and/or archaeological resources and/or human remains.
c. Discovery Protocol. If any tribal cultural deposits are discovered during the course of the project, all construction within 200 feet of such deposits shall cease and shall not re-commence until a qualified cultural resource specialist (which could be a person identified in subpart (b), above), in consultation with the A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
relevant tribe(s), analyzes the significance of the find and, if deemed significant, prepares a supplementary archaeological plan for the review and approval of the Executive Director that evaluates and provides suggested measures related to the discovery. The Executive Director shall review the plan and either: (1) approve it and determine that its recommended changes to the project or mitigation measures do not necessitate an amendment to this CDP, or (2) determine that the changes proposed therein necessitate a CDP amendment.
The location of any and all identified archaeological and tribal cultural resources shall be kept confidential, and only those with a “need to know” shall be informed of their locations.
d. Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered on-site during the course of the project, immediately after such discovery, the on-site archaeologist and/or tribal monitor shall notify the Monterey County Coroner within 24 hours of such discovery, and all construction activities shall be temporarily halted until the remains can be identified. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are those of a Native American, the Coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The NAHC shall deem the Native American most likely descendant (MLD) to be invited to participate in the identification process pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Permittee shall comply with the requirements of Section 5097.98 and work with the MLD person(s) to discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preference for treatment. Within 5 calendar days of notification to NAHC, the Permittee shall notify the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director of the discovery of human remains. The Executive Director shall maintain confidentiality regarding the presence of human remains on the project site.
11.Other Authorizations. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, the Permittee shall provide to the Executive Director evidence of other required authorizations for, or alternatively evidence that no such authorizations are needed, for the development authorized by this CDP (e.g., NOAA Fisheries, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey County Environmental Health Department, City of Pacific Grove, etc.). The Permittee shall inform the Executive Director of any changes to the project required by such entities, where such changes shall not be incorporated into the project until the Permittee obtains a Commission-approved amendment to this CDP, unless the Executive Director determines that an amendment is not legally required.
12.City of Pacific Grove Conditions. This CDP has no effect on conditions imposed by the City of Pacific Grove pursuant to an authority other than the Coastal Act, except as provided in this condition. The Permittee is responsible for compliance with all terms and conditions of this CDP in addition to any other requirements imposed by the City pursuant to the City’s non-Coastal Act authority. In the event of conflicts between terms and conditions imposed by the City and those of this CDP, the terms and conditions of this CDP shall prevail.
13.Future Permitting. Any and all future proposed development related to this project, A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
this project area, and/or this CDP shall be subject to the Coastal Commission’s continuing CDP jurisdiction. This CDP authorizes limited future repair, maintenance, and/or improvement development that is determined by the Executive Director to: 1) fall within the overall scope and intent of this CDP; 2) be consistent with the City of Pacific Grove LCP; and 3) not have any significant adverse impacts to coastal resources. Any development that the Executive Director determines does not meet such criteria shall require a separate CDP or a CDP amendment, as directed by the Executive Director.
14.Minor Adjustments. Minor adjustments to these special condition requirements, including to any Executive Director-approved plans, that do not require CDP amendments or new CDPs (as determined by the Executive Director) may be allowed by the Executive Director if such adjustments: (1) are deemed reasonable and necessary; and (2) do not adversely impact coastal resources.
15.Liability for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees. The Permittee shall reimburse the Coastal Commission in full for all Coastal Commission costs and attorneys’ fees (including but not limited to such costs/fees that are: (1) charged by the Office of the Attorney General; and/or (2) required by a court) that the Coastal Commission incurs in connection with the defense of any action brought by a party other than the Permittee against the Coastal Commission, its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns challenging the approval or issuance of these CDPs, the interpretation and/or enforcement of CDP conditions, or any other matter related to these CDPs. The Permittee shall reimburse the Coastal Commission within 60 days of being informed by the Executive Director of the amount of such costs/fees. The Coastal Commission retains complete authority to conduct and direct the defense of any such action against the Coastal Commission.
16.Deed Restriction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CDP, the Permittee shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval documentation demonstrating that the landowners have executed and recorded against the properties governed by this CDP (i.e., APNs 006-231-001, 006-234-004, 006-234- 005, 006-234-008, and the portion of Sloat Avenue between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue) a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director indicating that, pursuant to this CDP, the California Coastal Commission has authorized development on the subject property, subject to terms and conditions that restrict the use and enjoyment of that property, and that such terms and conditions shall be imposed as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the property. The deed restriction shall include a legal description of all of the properties governed by this CDP. The deed restriction shall also indicate that, in the event of an extinguishment or termination of the deed restriction for any reason, the terms and conditions of this CDP shall continue to restrict the use and enjoyment of the subject property so long as either this CDP or the development it authorizes – or any part, modification, or amendment thereof – remains in existence on or with respect to the subject property.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
3. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
A. Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Pacific of Grove, which is a coastal community of roughly 15,000 residents located at the northern tip of the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County between the unincorporated Del Monte Forest area of Monterey County downcoast and the City of Monterey upcoast. Pacific Grove is characterized by its historic downtown, its charming residential neighborhoods comprised of Victorian and craftsman architecture, the Asilomar Dunes area, and the almost entirely public shoreline fronted by Sunset Drive, Ocean View Boulevard, and the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail (a component of the California Coastal Trail, or CCT) that provides significant and important public access and dramatic views along a mostly rocky shoreline.
The project site is located at the far upcoast end of the City adjacent to its border with the City of Monterey and a short walk to the Monterey Bay Aquarium and historic Cannery Row, and just inland of Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station fronting on Ocean View Boulevard. The site is bordered by Dewey and Eardley Avenues upcoast and downcoast and extends up a gentle slope inland to Central Avenue. The site is currently mostly occupied by the American Tin Cannery (ATC) building and several other structures6 and totals some roughly 5.59 acres. The ATC building currently houses several ‘outlet’ retail stores, restaurants, and other general commercial uses. The project also proposes to use most of the public right-of-way of Sloat Avenue and portions of the public right-of-way of Ocean View Boulevard, both of which areas would be vacated by the City, for private development purposes as well, where this area measures about half an acre overall. Thus, all told, the proposed project would occupy some six acres, and essentially most of two City blocks.
The site was the subject of a local ballot initiative in 2016 when City voters approved a measure that would specifically allow for a future hotel use at the site, including to anchor the important gateway area that transitions from Monterey’s popular and historic Cannery Row into the City of Pacific Grove. Since that time, the City’s LCP was certified in 2020. As discussed in more detail subsequently in this report, the certified LCP envisions a hotel at this site and includes specific prescriptions for such a project, including height and design requirements to match the character and aesthetic of the adjacent community, to provide lower-cost accommodations, and to ensure substantial 6 The American Tin Cannery facility is located at the corner of Ocean View Boulevard and Eardley Avenue at the upcoast corner of the site. The site was originally developed about a century ago as the American Can Company, which provided cans to the then-booming sardine industry along Cannery Row.
The site became the location of one of the first factory outlets in the state (in the 1980s) and has been used for that and other mostly commercial purposes ever since. The overall site includes the American Tin Cannery Outlets facility, an adjacent warehouse facility, an adjacent office building, an adjacent drycleaning facility (which would remain), and surface parking for all such operations. For ease of reference (and given that this is how the project has generally been referred to), the site is referred to as the American Tin Cannery, or ATC, site in this report.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
public access and other community benefits.7 The site is designated in the LCP as Visitor-Serving Commercial.
See Exhibit 1 for a location map and Exhibit 2 for site photos.
B. Project Description
The City-approved project would provide for a complete redevelopment of the entire six acre site, including partial demolition of the existing ATC building, the total demolition of both the existing adjacent warehouse and office buildings, and clearing of existing pavement at the site, including along the upcoast two-thirds of the Sloat Avenue public street between Eardley and Dewey Avenues, and portions of Ocean View Boulevard. In its place, the City-approved project allows for a new 225-room luxury resort hotel with associated amenities, including about 11,000 square feet of street retail commercial uses along Ocean View Boulevard, on-site restaurant and bar space, rooftop gardens, banquet/meeting rooms, two pools and additional water features, a spa and fitness center, and underground and surface parking (some 290 spaces, including 255 valet parking spaces and 35 metered self-parking spaces for general public use). The resort hotel would be made up of two main wings with a variety of connected spaces and amenities. The proposed Executive Wing would be located inland of the new retail spaces along the Eardley Avenue side and would include 121 guestrooms extending up the slope toward Central Avenue, while the Groups/Family Wing would be located along the corner of Ocean View Boulevard and Dewey Avenue and would include 104 guestrooms, where both wings would have separate entrances and lobbies and rise to 40 feet in height. All told, the proposed development would include nearly 355,000 square feet of enclosed and other useable space that would “step up” the slope from Ocean View Boulevard, and would be designed with a mix of concrete, steel, glass, and wood materials that are intended to emulate a more industrial feel reminiscent of the cannery structures of the past.
The City-approved project also includes private development and uses in the current public rights-of-way (ROW) of Sloat Avenue and Ocean View Boulevard. Roughly twothirds of Sloat Avenue between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue would be vacated by the City (about 20,000 square feet), with only the downcoast portion retained where it fronts several developed properties not affiliated with the project. The vacated area would be developed as part of the resort hotel, with the now “dead-end” portion of Sloat becoming the entrance to the underground parking facility for the resort hotel. In terms of Ocean View Boulevard, the City would not vacate the right-of-way; rather the City would allow the developer to use up to 10 feet of it for private purposes via an encroachment permit, totaling about 3,200 square feet. Thus, all told the City-approved project would use about 23,000 square feet (or over half an acre) of public space for 7 The LCP was also amended in 2021 to modify certain site standards related to the ATC site (LCP-3- PGR-21-0038-1). Specifically, when the LCP was initially certified, the IP included development standards that only applied to the seaward portion of the ATC site (i.e., the parcels seaward of Sloat Avenue), and the City proposed to modify the IP so that those standards would apply to the entire ATC site (i.e., the parcels seaward and landward of Sloat Avenue and the portion of Sloat Avenue that extends through the ATC site). The changes were certified by the Commission, and thus both inland and seaward portions of the site are subject to the same IP standards.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
private purposes, and significantly change the use of the remaining portion of Sloat not vacated.
The City-approved project also provides for tree and vegetation removal (the Applicant would remove all 79 existing trees on the site),8 and the planting of 136 new trees, most of which would consist of native California species, as well as landscaping with drought tolerant shrubs and groundcovers, also mostly native California species, including on rooftop gardens that will be located throughout the resort hotel complex. The project also includes water efficient irrigation systems (using drip irrigation, bubblers, highefficiency heads, and weather-based controls) and both rainwater harvesting and graywater reclamation9 for landscape irrigation purposes, requiring associated piping, filtration/treatment and subsurface tanks, but these details were not identified in the City’s approval but rather to be worked out at a later date.
See Exhibit 4 for the City-approved project plans.
C. City of Pacific Grove CDP Approval
The City has been pursuing a hotel project at this site for about a decade, partnering with a series of potential developers to help implement that vision. In addition to the voter initiative from 2016 to rezone the site to allow for hotel uses, 10 the project went
through about 3 years of City reviews as part of the local CDP application (dating back to 2019), with its local review process ramping up in earnest after LCP certification in 2020 and going through several layers of additional local review prior to the City Council’s final CDP action in early 2022.
Architectural Review Board Review
The project was reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) on December 15, 2020. At the December 15, 2020 hearing, the ARB passed a motion to recommend advancing the project to the City’s Planning Commission with seven recommended revisions requiring the Applicant to reduce the height and scale of the Executive Wing (now called the Shoreline Wing), to relocate the service entrance, to reutilize the warehouse building (instead of demolishing it), to eliminate excavation near Ocean View Boulevard and Dewey Avenue (to reduce potential noise impacts to nearby harbor seals), to require that story poles/balloons be erected to demonstrate potential building massing, to increase use of modern design elements, and to retain the existing oak and cypress trees on the site that were noted to be in fair condition.
Coastal Commission staff also provided feedback to the City and Applicant prior to this juncture, stating as part of environmental review (i.e., in CEQA Notice of Preparation and via Draft Environmental Impact Report comments) that the project appeared to 8 These existing trees consist of eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, strawberry, Canary Island pine, and Coast live oak.
9 The source of the graywater would be from guestroom shower, bath, lavatory, and sink usage. 10 As discussed in more detail in the Lower-Cost Accommodations sections of this report, the City’s Measure C from 1986 generally limits hotels only to certain zoning districts and prohibits the rezoning for new overnight accommodations uses in the City without a vote of the people. Thus the 2016 initiative did just that for this site.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
oversubscribe the site, including in terms whether the amount of such intensively proposed development could be supported by the area’s limited water supply, that it appeared to block public coastal views and otherwise not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that it wasn’t clear how the project would provide for lower-cost accommodations (see all Commission staff comment letters on the proposed project as it worked its way through the City’s CDP review process in Exhibit 7).
In response to the ARB’s recommendations, the Applicant submitted an amended application to the City in late 2021, including a revised project description, a revised plan set, and a revised landscaping plan that incorporated a greater number of trees into the project’s tree planting palette, with more of these trees consisting of native species. The primary revisions to the project at that time were to reduce building mass and to incorporate top-floor setbacks in the Family/Group (Bluffs) Wing (to better preserve the view corridor from south of Eardley when traveling north towards Monterey Bay and to lessen the visual impacts of the building as seen from Central Avenue); to incorporate additional design elements reflective of Cannery Row and other industrial/commercial buildings; to eliminate the underground parking garage below the Executive/Shoreline Wing (reducing the amount of project grading by 38 percent and the number of truck trips by 35 percent); to reduce meeting/event space (from 13,634 square feet to 12,116 square feet) and of street retail space (from 16,202 square feet to 10,968 square feet); to add at-grade parking along Central Avenue, and to reduce the overall number of parking spaces on the site (290 spaces instead of 304 spaces, based on changes in parking demand due to the decrease in proposed meeting and retail space, and based on the use of lifts to vertically stack underground parking (applying to 30 spaces)); and to increase the number of new trees (from 125 to 136 trees), and include the use of both a greater number of native tree species and a greater number of larger (48-inch box-sized) trees.
11 Planning Commission Denial
The revised project was then reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission on October 28, 2021 and November 18, 2021. Coastal Commission staff provided feedback to help guide the Planning Commission, again raising similar concerns as before and recommending generally that the project be reduced in size so as not to increase any water usage over the existing ATC’s water use, to provide on-site lower-cost accommodations when none were being proposed, and raising questions on how the proposed lower-cost in-lieu fees were calculated. Ultimately, the Planning Commission denied the CDP application for the project at its November 18, 2021 meeting, voting 4- 11 The Applicant did not make project changes in response to all the ARB’s recommendations. The Applicant considered the viability of reconfiguring the location of the project’s service entrance but proposed to continue access from the “dead-end” of Sloat Avenue via Dewey Avenue. The Applicant also considered retention and reuse of the warehouse building but determined that the construction style and front façade of the building would not be compatible with the intended hotel use, and that such reuse would also result in a higher roof height with less articulation and fewer amenities that the proposed design. Regarding story poles or balloons to help decision-makers and the public get a better sense of the massing of the proposed project, the Applicant chose to forego such efforts, largely arguing that it would be too dangerous (instead, the Applicant posted renderings at three onsite locations for public review). Finally, the Applicant concluded that it could not retain more on-site trees without major project redesign, and that relocating and replanting existing trees would have a low likelihood of success.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
2-1 to deny the project and to not certify the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The primary concerns noted by the Planning Commission in voting to deny the CDP for the project were that the size and scale of the project were too large and led to too many public view and community character compatibility issues, that the potential for noise impacts to the harbor seals on the shoreline across Ocean View Boulevard was too great and not adequately addressed, and that the removal of all of the existing trees on the site was inappropriate. The Planning Commission also noted issues with a lack of an adequate water supply, inadequate public access amenities, unaddressed traffic impacts, and an inadequate evaluation of lower-cost visitor-serving options. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission’s denial action to the City Council.
City Council Approval
The City Council reviewed the appeal on January 12, 2022. At that time, Commission staff provided a comment letter to the Council strongly suggesting that it not take action at that time because the project suffered from too many unanswered questions and LCP conformance problems. Put another way, Commission staff didn’t believe the project was compliant with the LCP and suggested that additional analysis was necessary before the Council took a CDP action (again, see Exhibit 7). Notwithstanding such recommendations, however, the City Council ultimately overturned the Planning Commission’s denial by a 6-1 vote. In approving the CDP and certifying the EIR,12 the City Council concluded differently than the Planning Commission and found that the issues raised by the Planning Commission were not compelling enough to warrant denial. In taking its action, the City Council also vacated the City’s interest in the portion of Sloat Avenue that would be used by the Applicant for private purposes. 13 The Coastal Commission’s Central Coast District office received the notice of the City Council’s final CDP action on January 20, 2022 (Exhibit 3). The Coastal Commission’s ten-working-day appeal period for this action began on January 21, 2022 and concluded at 5 p.m. on February 3, 2022. Seven valid appeals of the City’s CDP decision were received during the appeal period (see below and see Exhibit 5). 12 The EIR concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to both aesthetics and cultural resources (with respect to historic structures). In allowing the project despite these CEQA nonconformities, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations that notes that the project’s benefits outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects (see also CEQA section that follows, as well as the City’s CEQA determinations).
13 In addition to CDP requirements, the vacation of public road rights-of-way is governed by California Streets and Highways Code Sections 8300 through 8368, which requires a two-step process. In the first step, the City Council must pass a resolution of intent to vacate the right-of-way, which was done at the hearing where the CDP for the project was approved. The second step is the actual vacation itself, which would require a separate City Council action. The City and the Applicant are in negotiations on the amount that the Applicant must pay for the right-of-way, and the actual vacation is contingent upon the City Council’s agreement thereto. In addition, actions that lead to public rights-of-way becoming private property, like this one, require CDPs, and thus the City’s CDP action that has been appealed here also provides for the right-of-way vacation.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
D. Appeal Procedures
Coastal Act Section 30603 provides for the appeal to the Coastal Commission of certain CDP decisions in jurisdictions with certified LCPs. The following categories of local CDP decisions are appealable: (a) approval of CDPs for development that is located (1) 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 line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance, (2) on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff, and (3) in a sensitive coastal resource area; or (b) for counties, approval of CDPs for development that is not designated as the principal permitted use under the LCP. In addition, any local action (approval or denial) on a CDP for a major public works project (including a publicly financed recreational facility and/or a special district development) or an energy facility is appealable to the Commission.
The City’s CDP action is appealable in this case because a portion of the project site is located within 300 feet of the inland extent of the beach/bluff.
For appeals of a CDP approval, grounds for appeal are limited to allegations that the approved development does not conform to the LCP and/or to Coastal Act public access provisions. For appeals of a CDP denial, where allowed (i.e., only allowed in extremely limited circumstances – see description of appealable actions, above), the grounds for appeal are limited to allegations that the development conforms to the LCP and to Coastal Act public access provisions.
The Commission’s consideration of appeals is a two-step process. The first step is determining whether the appeal raises a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed that the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, finds to be significant enough to warrant the Commission taking jurisdiction over the CDP application. This step is often referred to as the “substantial issue” phase of an appeal. The Commission is required to begin its hearing on an appeal, addressing at least the substantial issue question, within 49 working days of the filing of the appeal unless the applicant has waived that requirement, in which case there is no deadline. In this case, the Applicant has waived that deadline, and the Commission is thus under no hearing deadlines in this matter.
The Coastal Act and the Commission’s implementing regulations are structured such that there is a presumption of a substantial issue when the Commission acts on this question, and the Commission generally considers a number of factors in making that determination.14 At this stage, the Commission may only consider issues brought up by 14 The term substantial issue is not defined in the Coastal Act. The Commission's regulations simply indicate that the Commission will hear an appeal unless it “finds that the appeal raises no substantial issue” (see California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13115(b) (CCR)). CCR Section 13115(c) of the Commission’s regulations provides, along with past Commission practice, that the Commission may consider the following five factors when determining if a local action raises a significant issue: (1) the degree of factual and legal support for the local government’s decision that the development is consistent or inconsistent with the certified LCP and the Coastal Act’s public access provisions; (2) the extent and scope of the development; (3) the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision; (4) the precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretation of its LCP; and (5) whether the appeal raises only local issues, or those of regional or statewide significance. The Commission may, A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
the appeal. In reviewing the substantial issue question, staff will make a recommendation for the Commission to find either substantial issue or no substantial issue.15 If staff makes the former recommendation, the Commission will not take testimony at the hearing on the substantial issue recommendation unless at least three Commissioners request it, and, if no such testimony is requested, a substantial issue is automatically found. In both cases, when the Commission does take testimony, it is generally (and at the discretion of the Commission Chair) limited to three minutes total per side, and only the Applicant, aggrieved persons, the local government, and their proxies/representatives are allowed to testify, while others may submit comments in writing.
If, following any testimony and a public hearing, the Commission determines that the appeal does not raise a substantial issue, then the first step is the only step, and the local government’s CDP decision stands. However, if the Commission finds a substantial issue, the Commission takes jurisdiction over the underlying CDP application for the proposed project, and the appeal heads to the second phase of the hearing on the appeal.
In the second phase of the appeal, the Commission must determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the applicable LCP (and in certain circumstances, but ones that do not apply to this case, the Coastal Act’s public access and recreation provisions). This step is often referred to as the “de novo” review phase of an appeal, and it entails reviewing the proposed project in total. There is no specific legal deadline for the Commission to act on the de novo phase of an appeal. Staff will make a CDP decision recommendation to the Commission, and the Commission will conduct a public hearing to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the subject CDP. Any person may testify during the de novo phase of an appeal hearing (if applicable).
E. Summary of Appeal Contentions
The appeals contend that the City-approved project raises Coastal Act public access and LCP consistency questions relating to water supply, lower-cost visitor but need not, assign a particular weight to a factor, and may make a substantial issue determination for other reasons as well.
15 Note that in cases where a project is bisected by the appeals boundary, such as this one, the Commission can only evaluate the development in the appealable area when making its substantial issue determination. Sometimes development within the appeal boundary is clearly separable from development outside the appeal boundary (e.g., a garage wholly within the appeal boundary and a house outside of it). In other cases, though, the appeal boundary simply cuts through portions of the project, as is the case here. In such cases, it can be more difficult to parse what is subject to appeal versus not, especially the programmatic aspects of development that apply to the project overall. In this case, and with respect to the substantial issue determination, the Commission believes that it is not possible to parse out the appeal issues in a manner that clearly distinguishes project components within and outside of the appeal boundary. Instead, the Commission will evaluate the appeal issues through the lens of a complete project, which makes issues raised in the appeal boundary relevant to the entire project. If the Commission finds that the City’s approval raises a substantial issue of conformance with the LCP and takes jurisdiction over the CDP application, then the location of the appeal boundary becomes irrelevant, and the Commission will consider the entire project under the CDP application for LCP and Coastal Act consistency.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
accommodations, public views/community character, public access (including public parking) and associated amenities, biological resources, and historic structures.
Specifically, the appeals assert that the City-approved project would violate applicable Coastal Act and LCP provisions because: 1) it is not clear that the development will be served by an adequate and sustainable long-term water supply; 2) the lower-cost accommodations mitigation lacks specificity and the methodology to determine appropriate mitigation is flawed; 3) the mass, scale, and design of the project is not compatible with the surrounding built environment and would have an adverse impact on public views; 4) the project does not include adequate public access amenities and would reduce public street parking access; 5) construction noise would have adverse impacts on a nearby harbor seal rookery and on nesting black oystercatchers, and; 6) historic resources are not adequately protected. See Exhibit 5 for the full text of the appeals.
F. Standard of Review
The standard of review for the appeal is the City of Pacific Grove LCP and the Coastal Act’s public access provisions. The appeals allege that the City-approved project does not conform with that standard of review, and the Commission here is charged with evaluating those allegations in light of LCP provisions and Coastal Act public access provisions.
G. Substantial Issue Determination
1. Water Supply
Applicable LCP Provisions
Water supply on the Monterey Peninsula, including in the City of Pacific Grove, is severely constrained. Within that context, individual communities are allocated a certain amount of water supply and must then approve development that can be accommodated by that supply. The LCP recognizes this framework, and only allows approval of development if will be served by an amount of water that is within the City’s allocated supply, and if such water is coming from a long-term sustainable source.
Given water scarcity and the competition among a variety of uses for this resource, the LCP states that public recreational access and visitor-serving uses are prioritized for such limited supplies. Specifically, the LCP requires:
LUP Policy INF-1: The City Council shall annually review the City’s water Allocation regulations and procedures, and the status of the City’s water reserves. To the maximum extent feasible, the City will reserve a sufficient quantity of water to accommodate coastal priority uses designated by the Land Use Plan (i.e., public access and recreational uses and visitor-serving uses) from its allotted water supply. This allocation shall include considerations of constrained and unconstrained water demand, taking into account sources and timing of new water supply, as well as the City’s overall land use and economic policies.
LUP Policy INF-2: Development shall only be approved if it is first clearly demonstrated that the development will be served by an adequate existing water A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
allocation and sustainable long-term water supply. Individual private water systems, except for rainwater collection are prohibited.
LUP Policy INF-6: When considering new development or
redevelopment/renovation projects, the City will consider the existing property domestic water allocation, the potential for on-site conservation and capture, and available City supplemental water as part of the water allocation.
Water Supply Background
Unlike other parts of the State that rely on imported water,16 the Monterey Peninsula is entirely dependent on local water sources. California American Water Company (CalAm) is the private utility that provides water service to much of the area, including all of Pacific Grove. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD, or District) is the public entity that regulates/oversees water management in the Peninsula, including allocating the amount of water each city is allowed to use each year, tracking water usage at each particular site in the region, and ultimately deciding where Cal-Am is allowed to serve water. The region’s two primary water sources are the Seaside Groundwater Basin and the Carmel River.17 Historically, these two sources have been overtapped, and have resulted in water supply scarcity in the greater region for decades.
More specifically, with respect to the Carmel River, it drains a roughly 225 square mile basin that begins in the Santa Lucia Mountains south of the Monterey Peninsula and travels about 30 miles before emptying into the Pacific Ocean from at the Carmel River Lagoon within Carmel River State Beach just south of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
The Carmel River ecosystem has traditionally been an important steelhead habitat, as it “historically supported the largest anadromous steelhead run in the chaparral ecosystems of central and southern California, but development of water and land resources led to habitat degradation and an estimated 75% population decline by 1975”.18 The National Marine Fisheries Service listed the south-central California coast steelhead Distinct Population Segment as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1997, and designated the Carmel River as ‘critical habitat’ under the Act necessary for its protection and survival in 2005.
19 By 1999, the Carmel River was listed
16 For example, much of the San Francisco Bay Area relies on canals and aqueducts that carry water from reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada mountains (e.g., the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir), Central Valley cities and farms rely on the State Water Project (with Lake Oroville the largest reservoir in the system) and the Federal government’s Central Valley Project (with Shasta Lake the largest reservoir in the system and the State overall), and Southern California relies on water from the Colorado River, the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Owens Valley), and the two water projects.
17 There are some other smaller sources, including desalinated water produced by the City of Sand City and recycled water produced by the City of Pacific Grove and the Carmel Area Wastewater District generally used for non-potable purposes. All of these facilities have received CDP approval from the Commission for their water production and use.
18 Lopez Arriaza, Juan, et al. “Size-conditional smolting and the response of Carmel River Steelhead to two decades of conservation efforts.” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 11, 30 Nov. 2017, p. 3, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188971.
19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/09/02/05-16389/endangered-and-threatened-speciesdesignation-of-critical-habitat-for-seven-evolutionarily.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
as one of North America‘s ten most endangered rivers given the demands placed on it by urban water consumption.20
In 1995, in a seminal decision as a result of investigations into both the health of steelhead and the River more broadly, as well as an analysis of historic legal water rights, the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board, or Board) issued a cease-and-desist order (CDO 95-10) that substantially reduced the amount of water Cal-Am was able to legally withdraw from the Carmel River.21 The Order determined that Cal-Am was diverting 14,106 acre feet per year (AFY) from the River when it only had legal right to divert 3,376 AFY22 (or, put another way, Cal-Am was determined to be illegally diverting about 10,730 AFY). The State Water Board also determined that Cal-Am’s Carmel River diversions were the largest single impact on instream beneficial uses of the River, including in terms of adverse effects on fisheries and overall River habitat values. Because of a lack of available supply to substitute for and offset the almost 11,000 AFY of illegal diversions, and because the effect that such an immediate reduction in water supply would have on the Monterey Peninsula, the Order allowed Cal-Am to continue to divert up to 14,106 AFY from the Carmel River beginning in 1995 with 20% per year reductions until a combination of new water sources and water use reduction would bring the amount of River water used to its legal amount.
In the intervening decade,
23 the State Water Board was generally dissatisfied with CalAm’s efforts to reduce Carmel River diversions and to identify supplemental legal and sustainable water sources, and in 2009 issued replacement CDO 2009-060, which maintained the previous CDO’s tenets while also finding that Cal-Am: “(a) failed to comply with the requirements of Order 95-10, and (b) is in violation of Water Code Section 1052”, and that “diverting water from the river for growth is unacceptable when (a) Cal-Am has no legal right to divert the water, (b) the steelhead in the river has been declared a threatened species, (c) the river has been designated critical habitat for the steelhead and (d) miles of the river bed are dry for five to six months a year.” The State Water Board concluded that “water should not be diverted from the river for growth and that the quantity of water that is illegally diverted by Cal-Am should be reduced over a period of years until illegal diversion from the river is ended.” As such, the revised Order was structured only to accommodate existing users and not to accommodate new growth dependent on Carmel River water. To implement this requirement, CDO Condition 2 states:
20 See, The Conservancy at 40: The Carmel River https://scc.ca.gov/2016/06/26/conservancy-at-40-thecarmelriver/#:~:text=In%201999%20the%20Carmel%20River,once%20again%20healthy%20and%20vibrant. 21 See State Water Resources Control Board, Order No. WR 95-10, Order on Four Complaints Filed Against the California-American Water Company, Carmel River, Monterey County, July 6, 1995. 22 Where that total reflects 2,179 AFY based on SWRCB License 11866, 1,137 AFY based on pre-1914 appropriative rights, and 60 AFY based on riparian rights. 23 Note that in 2007, the State Water Board recognized Cal-Am’s right to divert an additional 2,425 AFY from the River, thus putting Cal-Am’s maximum legal diversion at 5,801 AFY (i.e., 3,376 + 2,425 = 5,801).
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after October 20, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am’s water system prior to that date.47 Footnote 47: Multiunit residential, commercial or industrial sites may currently be served by a single water meter. The installation of additional meters at an existing service will not be viewed as a new service connection provided that the additional metering does not result in an increase in water use...
In sum, the CDO does not allow Cal-Am to extract and provide water for any type of growth and development proposed after the CDO’s effectiveness in 2009 (e.g., building new water-using development from the ground up on vacant lots, intensifying existing water-using development with additional units, etc.).
24 While applying the prohibitions on new residential or commercial units from the ground up is fairly easy to understand and enforce, how to apply it to existing development at an existing service connection is a bit more complicated, including how to define what does and does not constitute an intensification of water use. To provide guidance, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)25 opined on how to interpret certain CDO provisions, particularly what constitutes an increase in water usage as it relates to intensifications of existing development. Specifically, in 2011, the CPUC determined26 that Cal-Am could allow new connections and/or increased use of water for existing service addresses if (1) such connection/increase was due to a change in zoning or use, and where all necessary approvals had been obtained prior to October 20, 2009; or (2) if the new connection was associated with the installation of additional meters but without an increase in water use. Ultimately, CPUC’s intent was to clarify that Cal-Am was not authorized to provide water in a way that would violate CDO Condition 2.
Importantly, CPUC also reinforced that the CDO requirements affecting Cal-Am also apply to the MPWMD and the manner in which it divvies up water to Monterey Peninsula cities and users. Thus, CPUC’s 2011 action also directed “Cal-Am to confer with MPWMD and then consult with the SWRCB to develop or select a workable protocol for determining the past use baseline as well as measuring increase in water use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use.” 24 Subsequently, in 2016 SWRCB issued CDO 2016-0016, which was designed to supersede and replace CDOs 95-10 and 2009-0060, and which maintained all previous requirements other than it reduced the amount of interim allowed diversions to 8,310 AFY (starting in 2015-2016) and extended the deadline to terminate unlawful diversions to December 31, 2021.
25 Since Cal-Am is a private utility, the CPUC has jurisdiction over and regulates many of Cal-Am’s operations, including in terms of rates charged for water service, akin to how CPUC regulates Pacific Gas and Electric as a private energy and natural gas utility provider. 26 See CPUC’s 2011 “Decision Directing Tariff Modifications to Recognize Moratorium Mandated by State Water Resources Control Board” (CPUC Decision 11-03-048).
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
In response to the State Water Board’s Order and the CPUC’s guidance, the MPWMD developed a comprehensive system of assigning water credits to each land use in the Monterey Peninsula so as to both establish a baseline of each site’s water usage as well as enforceable criteria for what would constitute an increase in water usage above that baseline. The MPWMD assigns each use a water credit, which is determined by the site’s square footage, number of restaurant seats, number of bathrooms, or some other quantifiable metric for the site, and then multiplied by the identified water use factor for that metric. The water use factor is the estimated amount of water used by each particular land use type, which the District determines based on actual water use data. 27 Thus, the District’s position is that such water factors are accurate since they are based on empirical water usage data specific to the Monterey Peninsula region. In short, the District’s water credit represents the District’s conclusion regrading the maximum amount of water that a site is physically equipped to use. The District maintains that as long as a proposed project is at or below that amount, then it can allow Cal-Am to serve it water.28
In summary, as it relates to the Carmel River, Cal-Am is under a State Water Board Order to reduce extraction to its legal limit of about 5,800 AFY and to preclude most types of new development and intensifications of existing uses that would result in an increase in water usage, including as determined by the MPWMD.
With respect to the Monterey Peninsula’s other primary source of water, the Seaside Groundwater Basin, it too is under legal constraint. The Basin provides about 30% of the Monterey Peninsula’s water usage, but has been under Court order, also known as an adjudication, since 2006. The adjudication specifies how much water is allocated to the various entities that use the Basin (Cal-Am, as well as private wells for agricultural uses, etc.), as well as broader management and conservation efforts overseen by a Court-identified Watermaster. The decision resulted in an ultimate reduction in available groundwater sourced from the Seaside Groundwater Basin by approximately 50 percent, or down to 3,000 AFY, as the identified Natural Safe Yield (where natural replenishment would avoid seawater intrusion and other adverse environmental effects).
Prior to the adjudication, Cal-Am pumped approximately 4,000 AFY from the Seaside Basin. Following the adjudication, Cal-Am’s allocation was reduced to 1,474 AFY. The establishment of adjudicated water rights of all the users of the Basin is intended to avoid long-term damage to the Basin, including potential seawater intrusion, subsidence, and other adverse impacts of over-pumping. The adjudication establishes a physical solution to Basin management that is “intended to ultimately reduce the drawdown of the aquifer to the level of the Natural Safe Yield; to maximize potential beneficial use of the Basin; and, to provide a means to augment water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.”
27 The District’s water use factors are found here: https://www.mpwmd.net/rules/Rule24.pdf. 28 Note, however, that the District’s water credit system hasn’t been ‘approved’ by the State Water Board as a legally enforceable mechanism to implement CDO Condition 2. In fact, and as discussed in more detail in the de novo findings, the State Water Board has opined that a more defensible baseline water use should be based on the past 5 years of actual flowing water at a particular site.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
In line with the adjudication, the Watermaster produces an annual report specifying the health of the basin and its progress in meeting identified objectives. The most recent report from 202229 noted that water usage from the Basin was about 2,871 AFY, below the Court-ordered limit of 3,000 AFY as the defined Natural Safe Yield. And while seawater intrusion wasn’t affirmatively found to be affecting water quality at that time, basin water levels were continuing to drop, and thus rendered the basin susceptible to intrusion. Specifically, the report found there are “ongoing detrimental groundwater conditions within the Basin that pose a potential threat of seawater intrusion.
Groundwater levels below sea level, the cumulative effect of pumping in excess of recharge and freshwater inflows, and ongoing seawater intrusion in the nearby Salinas Valley all suggest that seawater intrusion has the potential to occur in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. However, no data collected in Water Year (WY) 2022 indicate that seawater intrusion is occurring within the [Basin].”
In summary, the Seaside Groundwater Basin is Court-ordered to supply no more than 3,000 AFY. And while the adjudication is meant to limit water usage to a sustainable level in the long-term, at the current time, the Basin remains in a somewhat precarious state given the threat of seawater intrusion. This is therefore a critically important time in Seaside Groundwater Basin management so as to prevent seawater from infiltrating the Basin. In other words, Basin management becomes orders of magnitude more complex should seawater intrude upon the resource, and thus prevention efforts at the current time are key.
In light of the limitations – legal, chemical, and biological – of the region’s two primary water sources, Cal-Am, the MPWMD, area cities, and the region’s wastewater collection and treatment agency, Monterey One Water, have been working on solutions to both reduce consumption and to augment supplies. On the consumption front, and working in concert with the fact that most forms of new development have not been allowed in the region for some nearly 15 years since the CDO’s Condition 2 went into effect, the region has a robust water efficiency program that has worked in reducing water usage. For the 2023 water year, which ran October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Cal-Am’s customers in the entire Monterey Peninsula service area used just 9,118 acre-feet from all supply sources – including the Carmel River, Seaside Groundwater Basin, and recycled and stored water. This number is less than the 9,516 acre-feet used in the 2022 water year, below the 10-year average of 9,813 acre-feet annually, and well below the roughly 18,000 acre-feet it had been pumping when the State Water Board’s initial CDO was promulgated in 1995 (14,000 from the Carmel River and 4,000 from the Seaside Groundwater Basin).
And on the supply side, as the Commission is well aware, there are numerous projects completed, under construction, or permitted that will provide additional supplies to the region. One of these projects, the Pure Water Monterey project by Monterey One Water, is a water recycling and groundwater injection/replenishment/reuse project that has been operational since 2020. This project takes treated wastewater and then injects it into the groundwater basin, with the benefits of having a supply generally unaffected by the whims of annual precipitation, reducing the need for water from the Carmel River, 29 https://seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/2022%20Annual%20Report%20Final%2012-8-22.pdf.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
and replenishing the Seaside Groundwater Basin’s supplies and staving off seawater intrusion. The project is currently operational and treating 3,500 acre feet in this manner. Relatedly, the Pure Water Monterey Expansion project is currently under construction and will expand the project’s overall capacity by some 2,250 acre feet, for a total of 5,750 acre feet that can be added to the region’s water supply portfolio.
And lastly in terms of new supplies, Cal-Am is working on final approvals to construct a
4.8 million gallon per day (or 14.7 acre feet per day, or 5,365 AFY) desalination facility.
After several decades of planning and various proposed project iterations, the Commission ultimately approved the CDP for this project in November 2022, but subject to conditions of approval. Among the most notable is the need for updated supply and demand figures documenting how much water is needed to serve identified levels of growth over the next several decades. This point is currently subject to extensive debate, and drives to the heart of the matter regarding whether the desalination plant is actually needed in the long term. Cal-Am estimates that water demand by 2050 will be 14,480 AFY. Hence, Cal-Am argues that the additional roughly 5,400 AFY produced by the desalination plant is needed to augment the roughly 11,000 AFY available once the Pure Water Monterey Expansion is operational. The MPWMD, however, disagrees with such demand figure, and has instead forecasted a 2050 water demand of 10,599 acre feet, which is within the amount provided by existing legal supplies and the forthcoming water recycling projects. Thus, the District’s position is that Cal-Am’s desalination project is not needed for at least the next 30 years, and that the State Water Board should lift the CDO. The Commission, as part of its CDP approval and findings, found that while the water recycling projects would appear capable of satisfying water demand in the short term (for the next 20 years or so), there was also substantial evidence to reasonably conclude that desalination was also needed in the water portfolio for the long term. Hence, the Commission approved the CDP, but with several special conditions. Chief of among them to definitively answer the supply/demand/long-term need question is Special Condition 1, which identifies the CPUC as the final arbiter of this issue with revised supply and demand figures. If such determination shows there is a demand (i.e., a need for the project) for water in excess of what the recycling projects can provide by or before 2050, the desalination project can continue to proceed.
Coastal Act/LCP Considerations
Putting all of the above water supply background in the context of the Coastal Act and Pacific Grove LCP, a few things can be noted. Foremost, the preceding background information is meant to inform a common baseline understanding of the complicated and complex water supply situation in the Monterey Peninsula. While water is controversial and complex in most parts of California, it is particularly so in the Monterey region given its isolated nature relative to the large water projects that serve much of the rest of the state. And while there are a mélange of agencies involved, to be clear, the Commission’s role and review, as part of this project or otherwise, is not enforcement of the State Water Board’s CDO, or the MPWMD’s allocation/water use calculations, or the manner in which the CPUC estimates supply and demand. While these other agencies’ decisions and findings can inform Commission understandings, the Commission has an independent review authority under the Coastal Act to protect coastal resources, including sensitive water bodies from impairment and ensuring that new development receives water from a source that does not result in such impairment.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
This is not to suggest that the Commission will always disagree and ‘override’ other agencies’ determinations, as good public policy would suggest that other government agencies, particularly other state agencies, work together so as their respective mandates harmonize and reinforce each other. But it does mean that satisfaction of one law or agency does not automatically mean that another’s is similarly satisfied.
In this light, and applying what we know about the current state of affairs in the peninsula regarding water and coastal resource health, while the Monterey Peninsula has made significant strides in recent years regarding new water supplies and decreases in demand in ensuring a sustainable water supply portfolio, there is still much uncertainty. In 2023, NOAA Fisheries reaffirmed the threatened status of Carmel River steelhead, finding that drought and fish barriers remain concerns to the long-term health of the species.30 Similarly, the Seaside Groundwater Basin remains at risk of seawater intrusion, and while a goal of the Pure Water Monterey projects is to affirmatively guard against such impairment, they are not fully operational at this current time. And while there is general consensus that, in the short term, the water recycling projects can provide a sustainable water source once fully operational, there isn’t consensus beyond this time frame, including whether desalination can or will be part of a needed solution.
It also bears reiterating that, at the current time, the State Water Board’s CDO is still in effect, prohibiting most forms of new water using development. The Coastal Act and LCP require new development to be served by an identifiable, available, and long-term sustainable water source. The Commission has typically interpreted such requirement to generally mean that water must come from a source without impairment to sensitive coastal resources and the species that inhabit and use them, including wetlands, streams, groundwater resources, and the ocean. In light of the above, the Commission cannot find that these tests are met in the Monterey Peninsula at this time, and thus, for purposes of Coastal Act and LCP implementation for CDP review purposes, there is not an adequate and long-term sustainable water source to serve new development in Pacific Grove, whether this project or any other.
Appeal Contentions
The appeals contend that potential water use for the project has been underestimated and there has been no clear demonstration that the development will be served by an adequate existing water allocation and sustainable long-term water supply, especially given the significant existing constraints on water availability in the region. Specifically, the appeals contend that it strains credulity that the approved 225-room hotel project (with two swimming pools, a spa and fitness center, and bars and restaurants, etc.) will use less water than the existing ATC commercial development (especially given the currently low vacancy rate), and that the City did not calculate the difference between the existing water use at the site and the estimated water use that would occur when the resort hotel development is completed. The appeals also contend that the reliance on offsite laundry services to suggest that proposed project water consumption is commensurately reduced by that amount is inappropriate, including as the offsite 30 As part of its 2023 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of South-Central California Coast Steelhead:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/south-central-california-coast-steelhead-maintainthreatened-listing-status.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
laundry uses water for that purpose and that needs to be considered as a part of the project as well. See Exhibit 5 for the full appeal documents.
Analysis
In this case, the City approved the project by finding that its estimated water demand would be less than the water allocations/credits assigned to the site by MPWMD pursuant to the manner in which MPWMD calculates existing and proposed water use.
In other words, the City found that the project would be consistent with the District’s water allocation provisions, and, because of that fact, found the project to be consistent with the LCP.
There are numerous flaws with the City’s findings. First, in terms of the water demand/allocation numbers, the project is estimated to use more water than the existing site’s allocation. The District determined the ATC site to have a water allocation of 18.53 AFY based on its mix of commercial square footage (i.e., the District multiplied the square footage of the various commercial uses present on the site (whether vacant or actively used) by the water use factors for those uses, thus representing the total amount of water the site is currently ‘equipped’ to accommodate and not result in an impermissible intensification). The District then did the same calculation for the proposed project, including its mix of 225 hotel rooms (including number of bathrooms and fixtures in each room), pool/spa area, restrooms, and other amenities, and determined the project to use 23.43 AFY of water. Based on these metrics, the project would result in an impermissible intensification based on how the District enforces/interprets the State Water Board’s CDO. However, the District then ‘credited’31 the project by recognizing certain water accounting measures, including providing for on-site greywater recycling and reuse, not counting any on-site laundry use, and installing waterless urinals and toilets. Per the District, these measures would total 5.52 AFY of conservation, and the District then reduced this amount from the project’s water usage to then total 17.91 AFY, below the 18.53 threshold.
While conservation efforts can and should be provided on a project in a water scarce area, the District’s budgeting here is improper for many reasons, including that it is premature to offer credit to the proposed greywater system since there are no engineering-level plans, details, feasibility analysis, or approval from applicable environmental health agencies whether such measures can be built, operated, and employed on the project site. In addition, simply not counting laundry or other inherent water-using features of a proposed project fundamentally undercounts expected water use. In fact, it appears that the project will use more water than the District’s own water allocation for the site, and that water allocation itself is based on a hypothetical ‘full use’ of the ATC site when the site is not actually being used in that way,32 meaning that the 31 The MPWMD Board of Directors approved a finding of ‘Special Circumstances’ to approve these water usage reductions from their typical water use factors on October 15, 2018. 32 The ATC site has not been fully occupied for many years, with only about 33% of the site currently being used for commercial purposes. As a result, actual water use at the site is substantially less than the ‘credit’ identified by the district. Put another way, the ‘credit’ essentially identifies hypothetical use, or ‘paper water’, and not actual water use. If the 33% is applied to the full water use hypothetical, it would suggest that only about 6 AFY of running water is currently being used at the site.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
proposed project would significantly increase water use above that that is currently the case, and possibly by over 12 AFY. Such underlying analytic issues raise fundamental questions about how a project of this type and magnitude should be analyzed in terms of baseline/existing water use and what is permissible in light of the region’s current water supply inadequacies.33
And finally, the City’s reliance on the MPWMD to be the arbiter of compliance under the LCP and Coastal Act is misplaced. The City did not undertake any independent analysis of whether there is an adequate and sustainable water source to serve the proposed project. The City simply determined that, because of the fact that the MPWMD determined the project be below the existing allocation (i.e., with the conservation credits added on), the project automatically satisfied the LCP’s water supply requirements, and the City did not further identify any water supply issues or concerns.
As noted, this is problematic inasmuch as the LCP requires the City to independently evaluate whether water is available to serve a proposed use pursuant to the findings and criteria specified. Whether a project is consistent or not with another entity’s provisions does not de facto mean that it also satisfies (or not) the LCP. The City missed a key analytic step in its approval, and the lack of analysis under the LCP’s coastal resource protection lens clearly raises a substantial LCP conformance issue.
In sum, water is scarce on the Monterey Peninsula, and the City’s rationale behind its approval of this project, particularly one of this magnitude and scale, raises significant LCP consistency questions in terms of water supply. It clearly warrants the Commission’s considerations of these important points.
2. Lower-Cost Accommodations
Applicable LCP and Coastal Act Provisions
Because the Coastal Act’s public access policies are also an applicable standard of review for CDP appeals, Coastal Act Section 30213 is also applicable in this case regarding the provision of lower-cost accommodations. This policy evinces an intent to ensure that lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities are protected and provided along the coast, including as it relates to lower cost overnight visitor accommodations, including so as to ensure that the coastal zone is as accessible as possible to all, including the vast majority of the public who are not fortunate enough to live near the shoreline. Section 30213 states:
Section 30213: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. …
Building upon this clear Coastal Act direction, the LUP includes a series of provisions that require lower-cost accommodations to be provided and encouraged, and require that if new development fails to provide a range of affordability, that mitigation shall be 33 Including whether the District’s method for determining baseline water usage is appropriate in the first place. As discussed in more detail in the de novo review findings, there are other ways to evaluate and define the site’s baseline water usage.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
required as determined by a project-specific impact analysis. Specifically, LUP Policies PRA-11 and PRA-12 require:
LUP Policy 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).
LUP Policy PRA- 12: New development shall avoid adverse impacts to the availability and provision of lower and moderate cost visitor accommodations in the City. If new development would result in a decrease in the available supply of existing lower cost visitor accommodations, or would fail to provide a range of affordability, or fail to use land suitable for lower cost accommodations for that purpose, mitigation shall be required as determined by a project-specific impact analysis.
The IP builds further on this LUP direction via IP Section 23.90.220(c). This IP section provides specificity on implementing lower-cost provisions, including defining what constitutes low-, medium-, and high-cost accommodations, specifying that lower-cost units must be incorporated into a proposed project in an amount equal to 25% of the number of higher-cost rooms, and allowing for an in-lieu fee in an amount to “cover the cost of mitigation proportionate to the impact of the development for which the CDP is issued.” This in-lieu fee allowance is only for projects deemed infeasible to provide for such units on site and requires a financial feasibility assessment to ascertain such information, including land value, development costs, revenue assumptions, and similar information. The IP states:
IP Section 23.90.220(c) Lower Cost Visitor Accommodations; Protection of Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations: (1) Low, Moderate, and High-Cost Visitor Accommodations Defined. For purposes of this subsection, visitor accommodations shall be defined as low, moderate, or high cost as follows: (A) Low Cost. The annual average daily room rate of all economy hotels and motels in the city of Pacific Grove market area that have room rates that are equal to or below the statewide average daily room rate. Economy hotels and motels are AAA-rated one or two diamond hotels, or equivalent. (B) Moderate Cost. The average daily room rate is between low cost and high cost. (C) High Cost. The average daily room rate is 120 percent of the statewide average daily room rate or greater.
(2) Feasibility Analysis Required. An analysis of the feasibility of providing lower cost visitor accommodations shall be required for any application involving the expansion, reduction, redevelopment, demolition, conversion, closure, cessation, or new development of any project involving visitor overnight accommodations, with the exception of short-term rental lodging that is within residential units. If the proposed rates are not lower cost, the feasibility study shall explain why providing lower cost accommodations as part of the project is not feasible, or whether the proposed project includes amenities that would serve as a lower cost A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
option for families (e.g., additional beds per unit, suite facilities, kitchen facilities, etc.). This explanation shall address the land value; development costs; a breakdown of the estimated annual revenues (including average daily rate and occupancy rates); a breakdown of the estimated operating costs; and any other information necessary to address the feasibility of providing lower cost accommodations on site. The feasibility analysis shall be prepared at the applicant’s expense.
(3) In-Lieu Fee Program. Specific detailed information regarding calculation and use of any required in-lieu fees as part of a mitigation program for project impacts to the availability of lower cost visitor accommodations within the city shall be included as a condition of approval of the coastal development permit for the visitor accommodations. Fees shall be adequate to cover the cost of mitigation proportionate to the impact of the development for which the CDP is issued. All in-lieu fee payments shall be deposited into a fund established by the city which shall be in an interest-bearing account and shall only be used for the provision of new lower cost overnight accommodations, within the city. Funds may be used for activities including land acquisition, construction, and/or renovation that will result in additional lower cost visitor accommodations, as well as permitting costs. The specific lower cost requirements for any project funded by the in-lieu fee program shall be determined through the coastal development permit process of the in-lieu fee funded project.
(4) Impact Analysis Required. An analysis of a development’s impact on the availability of lower cost overnight visitor accommodations in the city shall be required for any application involving: (A) The expansion, reduction, redevelopment, demolition, conversion, closure, or cessation of any project involving overnight visitor accommodations, with the exception of short-term lodging that is within residential units; or (B) New or limited use overnight visitor accommodations, including timeshares, fractional ownership, or condominiumhotels. The impact analysis shall be prepared at the applicant’s expense. (5) Impact Defined. The proposed development would result in any loss in the available supply of existing lower cost visitor accommodations or would fail to provide lower cost rooms where new accommodations are proposed or fail to use land suitable for lower cost accommodations for that purpose. (6) Mitigation. If the review authority determines that the development will impact existing lower cost visitor-serving accommodations, or provide only high or moderate cost visitor accommodations or limited use overnight visitor accommodations such as timeshares, fractional ownership and condominiumhotels, then mitigation commensurate with the impact shall be provided as follows: (A) Where development proposes to remove existing lower cost accommodations or replace existing lower cost accommodations with high-cost accommodations, replacement of the lost low-cost rooms shall be maximized and provided at least on a one-to-one ratio either on site or a suitable off-site location within the city. Where development proposes to remove existing lower cost accommodations or replace existing lower cost accommodations with moderate A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
cost accommodations replacement of lost low-cost rooms shall be maximized and provided at a ratio commensurate with the identified impact, taking into consideration the proposed cost increase and any additional amenities that would be provided to serve as a lower cost option for families. Replacement shall prioritize providing for lower cost accommodations on-site where feasible; where on-site provision is not feasible, off-site provision shall be completed and ready for use prior to occupancy of the new development, as feasible. (B) Where development proposes to provide for new higher cost accommodations, the number of lower cost accommodations provided shall be maximized. At a minimum, the number of low-cost units shall be equivalent of 25 percent of the number of high-cost accommodations. (C) Where it is not feasible to provide all lower cost accommodations as required on site, an equivalent combination of on site, off site, and payment of an in-lieu fee, as described under the in-lieu fee program above, commensurate with the impact shall be provided. (7) Rate Control and Income Eligibility Requirements Prohibited. In no event shall a development as mitigation be required: (A) To provide overnight room rental be fixed at an amount certain; or (B) To establish any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.
Background
Coastal Act Section 30213 has its origins in the 1975 California Coastal Plan (the precursor to the 1976 Coastal Act). Based on extensive public input in the early 1970s, the Coastal Plan found that few tourist facilities for persons of low and moderate income were being built in many parts of the coastal zone, and that many such low- and moderate-cost facilities were being replaced by facilities that had higher costs, particularly in terms of overnight accommodations. The Coastal Act addressed these findings in part by including the specific Section 30213 mandate to protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide lower-cost visitor and recreational facilities.
Over the years, ensuring the provision of lower-cost overnight accommodations in the coastal zone has been especially important because permit applicants have typically requested that the Commission and LCP-certified local governments approve highercost overnight accommodations on land zoned for visitor-serving uses (in some instances where lower-cost accommodations were already situated on the land) rather than pursuing lower-cost accommodations, such as economy hotels, resulting in the loss of either potential or actual lower-cost accommodations in appropriately zoned areas. Overall, the Commission’s history of permitting overnight accommodations in the coastal zone confirms the need to guard against the loss or preclusion of lower-cost overnight accommodations along the coast, as recognized both in the Coastal Act and the LCPs that implement it.
As more higher-cost hotels are developed, the remaining lower-cost to moderate-cost hotel accommodations in the coastal zone tend to be older structures that become less economically viable as time passes. Further, as more redevelopment occurs, the stock of lower-cost overnight accommodations tends to be reduced, since it is more lucrative for developers to replace these structures with higher-cost accommodations or, as in A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)
this case, to build a new high-end hotel on parcels that historically have not included visitor accommodations. Commission staff prepared a study for a 2016 Commission workshop on lower-cost accommodations, which reviewed statewide data about such lower-cost units in the coastal zone since 1989. In its report to the Commission in 2016, staff found that out of six “cost” categories ranging from “economy” to “luxury,” a total of 24,720 economy rooms had been lost since the late 1980s, compared to a loss of a combined 11,247 rooms in the remaining five classes. In other words, economy rooms were lost at over twice the rate, over the same time period, of all other cost categories combined. Thus, all told, nearly 70% of all overnight rooms that were lost in the coastal zone between 1989 and 2016 were attributable to lost economy rooms, whereas less than 10% of the rooms lost have been in the upscale and luxury categories, and less than 0.2% have been lost in the luxury category. Such trends have made it much more difficult for those of more limited financial means to access the coast.
Such reduction in lower- and moderate-cost overnight accommodations in the coastal zone is also a serious environmental justice issue. Section 30604(h) of the Coastal Act provides that when acting on a coastal development permit, the issuing agency “may consider environmental justice, or the equitable distribution of environmental benefits.” As defined in Section 30107.3(a) of the Coastal Act, “environmental justice” means “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” and, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30013, the Commission and all public agencies are charged with advancing environmental justice principles when implementing the Coastal Act. Thus, environmental justice considerations are also relevant to the Commission’s review of new higher-cost hotel proposals, like this one.
The Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy, adopted in March 2019, indicates that the Commission shall “strive for a no-net-loss of lower-cost facilities in the coastal zone, while implementing a longer term strategy to increase the number and variety of new lower-cost opportunities.”34 In California, equitable coastal access and recreation opportunities for all populations has not been realized to date due to historic and social factors, such as discriminatory land use and economic policies and practices, with greater barriers to access experienced by low-income communities, communities of color, and underserved communities.35 Spatial analysis of 2010 Census data shows a majority of Californians (70.9%) live within 62 miles of the coast, but populations closest 34 California Coastal Commission Environmental Justice Policy, published by the Commission on March 8, 2019.
35 “Free the Beach! Public Access, Equal Justice, and the California Coast”, Robert Garcia & Erica Flores Baltodano, 2 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 143 (2005); Report on Coastal Act Affordable Housing Policies and Implementation, published by Commission staff on February 10, 2015; Report on the Historical Roots of Housing Inequity and Impacts on Coastal Zone Demographic Patterns, published by Commission staff on June 9, 2022.
A-3-PGR-22-0004 (American Tin Cannery Hotel Resort)