Pacific Grove City Council
November 6, 2024

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, November 6, 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

SPECIAL MEETING

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 Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d) (1)
Name of Case: Rachel Beuttler v. City of Pacific Grove
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case No. ADJ11143026 PGCC 11-6-24

ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 11-6-24

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, November 6, 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.

PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL 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.

THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO VIEW THE MEETING ON PENINSULA CHANNEL 25.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Smith
PGCC 11-6-24

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS

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 October 16, 2024 Special and Regular Meetings PG 9 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
PGCC 11-6-24

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 16
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
B. Monterey-Salinas Transit Board Meeting Minutes: September 9, 2024 and September 24, 2024 PG 18
Reference: Joe Amelio, Councilmember
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

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. 2025 Ford Police Interceptor Vehicle Purchase PG 30
Reference: Dawn Delfino, Patrol Operations Commander
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a purchase order with Cypress Coast Ford of Seaside for the purchase of (1) 2025 Ford Police Interceptor Vehicle in an amount not to exceed $64,927.28.

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. Task Force on Diversity Equity and Inclusion Minutes: September 9, 2024 PG 32 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines PGCC 11-6-24

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Recreation Board Meeting Minutes March 28, April 25, and July 25, 2024 PG 36 Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

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 for Police Chief PG 43
Reference: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
Recommended Action:

1. Request City Attorney to read title of ordinance;

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold for first reading an Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to include salary for Police Chief;

3. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney;

4. 5. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment - Coastal Hazards PG 47 Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Local Coastal Program (LCP), including the text, policies, and figures of the Land Use Plan (LUP Sections 1.10,

2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the Implementation Plan (IP/Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 23.90.140(b)).

CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15265, Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
PGCC 11-6-24

A. Pine Avenue Safety Improvements - Robert Down Elementary PG 150 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action:

Receive the presentation, feedback from the Traffic Safety Commission & PGUSD, and provide direction.

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action on this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Facilities Conditions Assessment PG 153
Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action:

1. Receive Report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action on this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Direction to City Attorney to work with City Manager and Staff to prepare an Ordinance amending Chapter 20.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code in Regard to Signs Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney PG 158
Recommended Action:

Motion to direct City Attorney to work with City Manager and staff to prepare an Ordinance amending Chapter 20.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code in regard to signs.

1. 2. Take Alternative Action Related to this item
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 11-6-24

NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.

PGCC 11-6-24

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: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the October 16, 2024 Special and Regular Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 10-16-24
PGCC 11-6-24

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 16, 2024, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the regular meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Smith.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Mayor Peake recommended the two special meeting items be joined and heard simultaneously.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem absent, to approve the agenda.

SPECIAL MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Public comment received from John Reed, Michelle Knight, Bill Kampe, and Moe Ammar.

1. Written Public Comment
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9(d)(1) Jackson Sherry v. City of Pacific Grove
United States District Court Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-04166-SVK B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant Government Code Section 54956.9 (d) (2) One Case (ATC Hotel Project)
DRAFT PGCC 11-6-24

2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, October 16, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY:

Mayor Pro Tem Nick Smith
Hyatt Centric The Pike Long Beach
Maritime Room
285 Bay St,
Long Beach, CA 90802
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri. Appearing telephonically/remotely:

Mayor Pro Tem Smith.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Mayor Peake led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda
Motion carried 7-0 with the following roll-call vote:

YES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

2. PRESENTATIONS

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9(d)(1) Jackson Sherry v. City of Pacific Grove
United States District Court Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-04166-SVK DRAFT PGCC 11-6-24

3 City Attorney Brian Pierik report no action was taken.

B. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Mike Cannon, Christi Thomas, Vincent Tuminello, Mike Gibbs, Anthony Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Carmelita Garcia.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 8B was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri, and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.

Motion carried 7-0 with the following roll-call vote:

YES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the October 2, 2024 Special and Regular Meetings Action: Approved minutes as revised per Errata.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

6. RESOLUTIONS

7. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance Amending Chapter 7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60
Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 24-016 Amending Chapter

7.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to Increase Short-Term Rental Penalties in Accordance with SB 60.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Core Revenue Report for September 2024
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Check Register for September 2024 This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

DRAFT PGCC 11-6-24

4 Reference: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
Recommended Action: Receive the Check Register.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. On-Call Concrete Contractor
Action: Authorized an agreement with Monterey Peninsula Engineering for on-call concrete services agreement in an amount not to exceed $75,000 with one (1) option to extend via mutual letter for one additional year.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Agreement with 4Leaf for On-Call Traffic Engineering Services Action: Authorized the Mayor to sign extensions of the Professional Services Agreement with 4Leaf for On-Call Traffic Engineering Services.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES *************************

8.B. Check Register for September 2024
No public comment received.

Action: Council received the Check Register.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ATC Hotel Project: Adoption of Uncodified Ordinance Conditionally Ordering Vacation of Portion of Sloat Avenue and Proposed Agreement For Purchase Of RightOf-Way and Joint Escrow Instructions for Sloat Avenue Public comment received from John Reed, Doug Cheshire, Nicolas Mourlam, Juan Rapoza, Michelle Knight, Bill Kampe, Jeanne Byrne, Moe Ammar, Jane Haines, Christi Metzner, Christie Thomas, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Michelle Raine, Marietta Bain, Lisa Ciani, Rebecca Lee, and Anthony Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to adopt Uncodified Ordinance Conditionally Ordering Vacation of Portion of Sloat Avenue. (Ordinance No. 24-017.)
Motion carried 7-0 with the following roll-call vote:

YES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

DRAFT PGCC 11-6-24

5 ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to authorize the Mayor to sign Proposed Agreement For Purchase Of Right-Of-Way and Joint Escrow Instructions for Portion of Sloat Avenue, revising Section A to read 206 Hotel Rooms and 16 Group and Family Units.

Motion carried 7-0 with the following roll-call vote:

YES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmember Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
Action: Council took a break from 8:00 – 8:12 p.m.

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Schedule of Public Hearings to Establish District Boundaries to Transition from the City of Pacific Grove City Council At-Large Election System to a District-Based City Council Election System
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani, Carmelita Garcia, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Council received and filed Schedule of Public Hearings to Establish District Boundaries to Transition from the City of Pacific Grove City Council At-Large Election System to a District-Based City Council Election System in accordance with California Elections Code §10010.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION
DRAFT PGCC 11-6-24

6 ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the special and regular meetings at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: __________________________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 11-6-24

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: November 06, 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 ninth monthly progress report update to Council on October 2, 2024. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:

September 23, 2024: Rincon delivered the Second Draft Housing Element (DHE) to City staff for initial review by October 14, 2024.

September 25, 2024: City CDD staff connected with PWD staff to confirm DHE content related to the City's Sewer Collection System Master Plan (SCSMP) and wastewater management.

September 30, 2024: Planning Commissioners Sawyer and Murphy provided staff with a summary of their DHE outreach efforts at the PG Public Library and PG Farmer’s Market conducted between August 6 to September 9, 2024.

October 2, 2024: City staff updated the Housing Element webpage with the ninth monthly progress report and submitted content for the October 4, 2024 City Manager’s Report publication.

October 3, 2024: The Housing Element Team convened to discuss progress and next steps for the Program EIR Project Description (PEIR PD) and the review of the Second Draft DHE materials.

October 7, 2024: Staff updated the Housing Element webpage with recent outreach information.

October 10, 2024: Rincon provided a draft reference tool for preliminary revisions to the Land Use Element (LUE). During the October 10th Planning Commission Meeting, staff gave a Housing Element status update and initiated a discussion on ground floor residential uses in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District.

October 14, 2024: Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments on the Second DHE which incorporates feedback from HCD’s January 31st comment letter as well as the proposed PGCC 11-6-24

incorporates feedback from HCD’s January 31st comment letter as well as the proposed alternative sites and methods to replace the three U-zoned sites presented to the Planning Commission in June and approved by the City Council in July 2024.

October 15, 2024: Members of the Housing Element Team met with HCD reviewers to discuss the current status of the DHE.

October 17, 2024: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps for the Housing Element Update, including the upcoming Zoning Code, Land Use, and Health and Safety Element amendments, along with the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Housing Element Team includes City Planning, Housing, and City Manager staff, City legal representation, and Rincon/subconsultant staff.

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:
www.cityofpacificgrove.org/HousingElement

OPTIONS
N/A – This is information only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda No. 8 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joe Amelio, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Monterey-Salinas Transit Board Meeting Minutes: September 9, 2024 and September 24, 2024
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
MST Minutes 9-9-24
MST Minutes 9-24-24
PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda # 3-2
October 14, 2024 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2024
10:00 am (Pacific)

Present: Mary Ann Carbone, Chair City of Sand City
Lorraine Worthy, Vice Chair City of Gonzales
Jeff Baron City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Ariana Rodriguez City of Greenfield
Kim Shirley City of Del Rey Oaks
Mike LeBarre City of King
Liesbeth Visscher City of Marina
Ed Smith City of Monterey
Joe Amelio City of Pacific Grove
Tony Barrera City of Salinas
Dave Pacheco City of Seaside
Anna Velazquez City of Soledad
Luis Alejo County of Monterey

Absent: None
Counsel: Michael D. Laredo De Lay & Laredo
Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO
Lisa Rheinheimer Deputy CEO
Kelly Halcon Chief Human Resources Officer
Michael Kohlman Chief Information Officer
Michelle Overmeyer Director of Planning and Innovation
Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Deputy Secretary/Clerk to the Board Andrea Williams Finance Manager
Beronica Carriedo C/S & Community Relations Supervisor
Cristy Sugabo Mobility Manager
Dalia Lopez Coach Operator
Daniel Bruno Scheduling Assistant
Ezequiel Rebollar IT System Engineer
Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez Marketing & Communications Manager
Jacob Huggins IT Specialist
Jacqueline Munoz Customer Service Representative
PGCC 11-6-24

Jarred Augusta Risk & Safety Manager
Kevin Allshouse Contract Transportation Manager
Marzette Henderson Transportation Manager
Melissa Valadez Human Resources Supervisor
Natalie Flores Associate Planner
Paul Lopez Facilities Manager
Sonjé Dayries Compliance Analyst
Steven Bruno Purchasing Agent
Vince Dang Project Management Coordinator
Public: Chris Duymich AMBAG
Christina Watson Transportation Agency for Monterey County Emily Paz Rides Customer
Javier Gomez Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Linda Gonzalez Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Liz Gerrity Member of the Public
Mari Padilla Member of the Public
Michael Salerno Keep Ford Ord Wild
Peter Meyerhofer Kimley-Horn
Steve Ramirez ATU

1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll Call. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Carbone called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Director Pacheco led the pledge of allegiance.

Director LeBarre arrived at 10:03 a.m.
1-3. Review Highlights of the agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)
Carl Sedoryk reviewed the highlights of the agenda. Staff received substantial public comments by the deadline related to item 5-1 which were forwarded to the Board. Staff recommended pulling item 5-1 from the agenda pending final review and actions by the Coastal Commission.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Michael Salerno asked if item 5-1 will be addressed separately. Mr.

Sedoryk responded that item 5-1 was pulled from the agenda and will be brought back after the Coastal Commission meeting of September 12. Mr. Salerno asked if the series of communications from Keep Fort Ord Wild were received. Legal Counsel Michael Laredo confirmed that the Board received all public comments PGCC 11-6-24

provided by 3pm on Friday, September 6. Any additional comments after that time will be provided to the Board.

3. CONSENT AGENDA
These items will be approved by a single motion. Anyone may request that an item be discussed and considered separately.
3-1. Financial Reports – June 2024. (Lori Lee) (Page 7) a) Accept Report of June 2024 Cash Flow
b) Approve June 2024 Disbursements
c) Accept Report of June 2024 Treasury Transactions
3-2. Approve Minutes of the MST Board Meeting on July 8, 2024. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 19)
3-3. Receive Minutes of the MST Board Administrative Performance Committee Meeting on July 8, 2024 (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 27) 3-4. Receive Draft Minutes of the RTA Board Meeting on July 8, 2024. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 31)
3-5. Receive Minutes of the MST Board Meeting on August 19, 2024 (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 37)
3-6. Receive Draft Minutes of the Measure Q Oversight Committee Meeting on August 19, 2024. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 41)
3-7. Adopt Resolution 2025-03 Recognizing Dalia Lopez, Coach Operator as Employee of the Month for August 2024. (Marzette Henderson) (Page 45) 3-8. Adopt Resolution 2025-04 Recognizing Jacob Huggins, Information Technology Specialist as Employee of the Month for September 2024. (Scott Taylor) (Page 47)
3-9. Approve Resolution 2025-05 Authorizing the General Manager/CEO or Their Designee to Execute Grant Documents for Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program Funds. (Michelle Overmeyer) (Page 49)
3-10. Authorize the General Manager/CEO or Their Designee to Enter into a Three-Year Contract with The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for Tire Lease Service and Support, with the Option to Extend for One (1) Additional Two (2) Year Term, for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $1,666,059, Including Option Years. (Steven Bruno) (Page 53) PGCC 11-6-24

3-11. Ratify Contract with Commute with Enterprise, Authorize the General Manager/CEO or Their Designee to Exercise the Option to Extend the Contract from July 26, 2025 through July 25, 2026, and Approve Continuing a $450/Month Subsidy for Each Vanpool Group for Each Year of the Contract. (Steven Bruno) (Page 55)
3-12. Approve Updates to MST’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP). (Kelly Halcon) (Page 57)
3-13. Approve Updates to MST’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). (Kelly Halcon) (Page 83)
3-14. Receive Draft Meeting Minutes of the Mobile Advisory Committee (MAC) on July 31, 2024. (Ruben Gomez) (Page 95)
There were no public comments on the Consent Agenda.

On a motion by Director Alejo seconded by Director Amelio and carried by the following roll call vote, the Board approved all items on the Consent Agenda:

AYES: 13 Alejo, Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Carbone, LeBarre, Pacheco, Rodriguez, Shirley, Smith, Velazquez,
Visscher, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
RECUSE: 0

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.

5. ACTION ITEMS
5-1. Receive Updates on the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, Review Conditions of Approval from the Coastal Commission, and Authorize the General Manager/CEO to Negotiate and Execute a Contract Amendment with Kimley-Horn to Comply with Coastal Commission CDP Conditions and Design Services During Construction in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,070,200. (Lisa Rheinheimer) (Page 99)
Item 5-1 was pulled from the agenda.
5-2. Discontinue On Call Services in South County Effective December 31, 2024. (Michelle Overmeyer) (Page 107)
Emily Paz, member of the public, commented on her issues with MV Transportation and scheduling RIDES trips, communication, and customer PGCC 11-6-24

service. Mari Padilla, member of the public, reiterated Ms. Paz’s concerns related to MV Transportation.

On a motion by Director Worthy, seconded by Director Velazquez and carried by the following roll call vote, the Board approved item 5-2:

AYES: 13 Alejo, Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Carbone, LeBarre, Pacheco, Rodriguez, Shirley, Smith, Velazquez,
Visscher, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
RECUSE: 0

6. RECOGNITIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6-1. August 2024 Employee of the Month – Dalia Lopez, Coach Operator (Marzette Henderson)
The MST Board recognized Dalia Lopez as the August 2024 Employee of the Month for her outstanding contribution to MST and the entire community. 6-2. September 2024 Employee of the Month – Jacob Huggins, Information Technology Specialist (Scott Taylor)
The MST Board recognized Jacob Huggins as the September 2024 Employee of the Month for his outstanding contribution to MST and the entire community.
6-3. The Wright Way Awards Recognition (Kelly Halcon) (Page 111) The MST Board recognized staff for their Wright Way Award achievement and outstanding contribution to MST and the entire community.

7. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board will receive and file these reports, which do not require action by the Board.
7-1. General Manager/CEO Monthly Report – June 2024. (Page 113) a. News Article “CapMetro Stops Shift To All Electric Bus Fleet” (Page 115)
b. June 2024 Monthly Report: http://www.mst.org/about-mst/board-ofdirectors/board-meetings/ c. Facilitated Strategic Planning Workshop in January 2025 PGCC 11-6-24

7-2. Federal Legislative Advocacy Report (Page 125)
7-3. State Legislative Advocacy Update (Page 127)
7-4. Staff Trip Reports – (Pages 133-141)
7-5. Correspondence –
a. Public Comment Soledad Ace Hardware (Page 143)
b. CFEE Thank you Letter (Page 153)
7-6. FY 2023-2025 Strategic Plan and Action Plan Status Update (Page 155)

8. BOARD REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND REFERRALS
8-1. Reports on Meetings Attended by Board Members at MST Expense. (AB 1234)
a. APTA Transit Board Member Seminar July 2024- Kim Shirley (Page 165)
b. APTA Transit Board Member Seminar July 2024- Tony Barrera (Page 167)
c. APTA Transit Board Member Seminar July 2024- Liesbeth Visscher (Page 169)
Chair Carbone provided her written trip report for the APTA Transit Board Member Seminar in July 2024.

Director Smith provided his verbal trip report for the APTA Transit Board Member Seminar July 2024.
8-2. Board Member Comments and Announcements.

Director Alejo requested AB1234/Ethics Training through MST counsel.

Michael Laredo will work with MST to coordinate the training.

Carl Sedoryk announced the September 12, Coastal Commission Findings and next steps meetings.

Director Smith asked for the Coastal Commission meeting schedule. Staff will inform the Board closer to the September 12 meeting date.

Chair Carbone informed the Board that AB1234/Ethics training is available for those participating with the California League of Cities. 8-3. Board Member Referrals for Future Agendas.

PGCC 11-6-24

9. ATTACHMENTS
9-1. The June 2024 Monthly Report can be viewed online at http://mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/

10. CLOSED SESSION
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to Closed Session. There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. The Board will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time individually, through staff, or on a subsequent agenda. (Please refer to page 1 of the agenda for instructions) As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, the Board of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with the Board's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act representative.

There were no public comments on the Closed Session Agenda. 10-1. Review Incentive Pool for MSTEA and Confidential Unit and Provide Direction. (Carl Sedoryk) (Enclosure)
Michael Laredo, MST General Counsel, reported that the Board met and discussed closed session item 10-1. The Board provided direction to the General Manager. The item will be brought back for action at the next meeting. 10-2. Review General Manager/CEO Performance Evaluation Gov. Code § 54957.6. (Mary Ann Carbone) (No Enclosure)
Michael Laredo, MST General Counsel, reported that the Board met and discussed closed session item 10-2. The item will be brought back for action at the next meeting.

11. ADJOURN
With no further business to discuss, Chair Carbone adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m. (Pacific).

Prepared by: ___________________Reviewed by: __________________ Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk
Deputy Secretary/Clerk to the Board General Manager/CEO PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda # 3-4
October 14, 2024 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Special Meeting Minutes
September 24, 2024
9:00 am (Pacific)

Present: Mary Ann Carbone, Chair City of Sand City
Lorraine Worthy, Vice Chair City of Gonzales
Jeff Baron City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Kim Shirley City of Del Rey Oaks
Ariana Rodriguez City of Greenfield
Mike LeBarre City of King
Liesbeth Visscher City of Marina
Joe Amelio City of Pacific Grove
Tony Barrera City of Salinas
Dave Pacheco City of Seaside

Absent: Ed Smith City of Monterey
Anna Velazquez City of Soledad
Luis Alejo County of Monterey
Counsel: Michael D. Laredo De Lay & Laredo
Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO
Lisa Rheinheimer Deputy CEO
Kelly Halcon Chief Human Resources Officer
Michael Kohlman Chief Information Officer
Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Deputy Secretary/Clerk to the Board Andrea Williams Finance Manager
Asuzena Flores Grants Analyst
Beronica Carriedo C/S & Community Relations Supervisor
Ezequiel Rebollar IT System Engineer
Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez Marketing & Communications Manager
Jacob Huggins IT Specialist
Jarred Augusta Risk & Safety Manager
Kelly Soriano Mobility Specialist
Marzette Henderson Transportation Manager
Natalie Flores Associate Planner
Pamela Aquino Customer Service Representative
Paul Lopez Facilities Manager
PGCC 11-6-24

Rolando Munoz Mobility Specialist
Scott Taylor Information Technology Manager
Ursulla Scardina Communications Specialist
Vince Dang Project Management Coordinator
Public: Chris Duymich AMBAG
Peter Meyerhofer Kimley-Horn
Tyson Sohagi Sohagi Law Group, PLC
Tate Baugh Member of the Public

1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll Call. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Carbone called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Director Pacheco led the pledge of allegiance.

Director LeBarre arrived at 9:06 a.m.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to the jurisdiction of MST but not on the agenda. There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. The public is encouraged to engage in respectful dialog that supports freedom of speech and values diversity of opinion. Failure to engage in respectful dialog will result in speakers being muted or required to leave. The Committee will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time, either individually, through staff, or on a subsequent agenda. (Please refer to page 1 of the agenda for instructions) There were no public comments.

3. CLOSED SESSION
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to Closed Session. There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. The Board will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time individually, through staff, or on a subsequent agenda. (Please refer to page 1 of the agenda for instructions) As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, the Board of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with the Board's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act representative.

PGCC 11-6-24

3-1. Conference with Legal Counsel; Threatened Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9 (d)(2):

Parties: Keep Fort Ord Wild; Monterey-Salinas Transit District; California Coastal Commission
Facts & Circumstances: the proposed SURF! Busway and Keep Fort Ord Wild's intent to challenge the project under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Act.

There were no public comments.

Director Rodriguez arrived at 9:10 a.m. and Director Amelio arrived at 9:15 a.m.

Michael Laredo, MST General Counsel, reported that the Board met and discussed closed session item 3-1 and no reportable action was taken.

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4-1. SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project (Lisa Rheinheimer) (Page ) Hold a Public Hearing on the following:
a. Review the Racial Equity Analysis and Project Business Case; b Find the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit (SURF! Project) does not trigger subsequent or supplemental environmental review for the reasons outlined under “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review,” and find the project is exempt from CEQA for the reasons outlined under “CEQA Review;” and
c. Authorize the General Manager/CEO or their designee to negotiate and execute a contract amendment with Kimley-Horn to comply with Coastal Commission CDP conditions in an amount not to exceed $1,070,200.

There were no verbal public comments. Written comments were received from Michael Salerno of Keep Fort Ord Wild.

On a motion by Director LeBarre, seconded by Director Amelio and carried by the following roll call vote, the Board approved item 4-1:

AYES: 10 Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Carbone, LeBarre, Pacheco, Rodriguez, Shirley, Visscher, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 3 Alejo, Smith, and Velazquez
ABSTAIN: 0
RECUSE: 0
PGCC 11-6-24

5. ADJOURN
With no further business to discuss, Chair Carbone adjourned the meeting at 9:36 a.m. (Pacific).

Prepared by: ___________________Reviewed by: __________________ Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk
Deputy Secretary/Clerk to the Board General Manager/CE0 PGCC 11-6-24

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: Dawn Delfino, Patrol Operations Commander
MEETING DATE: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: 2025 Ford Police Interceptor Vehicle Purchase
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to award a purchase order with Cypress Coast Ford of Seaside for the purchase of (1) 2025 Ford Police Interceptor Vehicle in an amount not to exceed $64,927.28.

DISCUSSION
Police vehicles play an integral role within the City’s fleet, serving as indispensable tools for the police department's daily operations. The Pacific Grove Police Department currently maintains a diverse fleet comprising nine marked patrol vehicles. This lineup includes (3) Ford Explorers, (2) Dodge Chargers, (2) Ford Crown Victoria, (1) Chevrolet Tahoe, and (1) Ford Expedition.

The City has spent tens of thousands of dollars to repair the aging fleet in the past year and needs to purchase a new vehicle. The purchase of a new patrol vehicle will allow for the replacement of an older unit with high mileage in the fleet. Unit 3 is currently inoperable because it does not have a camera system . According to the California Department of General Services, the recommended mileage for replacing law enforcement vehicles is 100,000 miles after 60 months. Below is an approximate mileage chart of the Police Department's current fleet:

UNIT # YEAR VEHICLE TYPE APPROX. MILEAGE
1 2015 Ford Explorer 100,000
2 2015 Ford Explorer 95,000
3 2010 Ford Crown Victoria 102,000
4 2018 Dodge Charger 53,000
5 2015 Ford Explorer 110,000
6 2010 Ford Crown Victoria 99,000
7 2017 Dodge Charger 87,000
8 2004 Ford Expedition 70,000
9 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe 5,000
PGCC 11-6-24

The City attempted to receive (3) dealership quotes for purchasing one 2025 Ford Police Interceptor.

Due to high demand and low inventory, two of the three dealerships did not have a vehicle for purchase, could not provide a quote, and did not have an in-stock estimated availability date. Outfitting of the vehicle (including lights, sirens, push bumpers, radio, wireless equipment, mobile data computer docking station, partition equipment storage, cabling, shotgun, and rifle mounts) is separate from the purchase price of the vehicle and will be sent out to bid.

DEALERSHIP VEHICLE QUOTE
Frontier Ford Unavailable
The Ford Store Morgan Hill Unavailable
Cypress Coast Ford $64,927.28
Cypress Coast Ford currently has a vehicle in stock, and based on this availability, the staff recommends that the award be granted to Cypress Coast Ford.

OPTIONS

1. Do not authorize the agreement with Cypress Coast Ford

2. Authorize the purchase of the 2025 Ford Police Interceptor through Cypress Coast Ford

3. Take no action
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The City Council approved a capital outlay project totaling $85,000.00 in the FY 2024/25 Annual Budget to purchase a new patrol vehicle and install public safety equipment. Funding has been allocated for this project in the Police Department FY 2024/25 Operations Budget.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda No. 10 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Task Force on Diversity Equity and Inclusion Minutes: September 9, 2024 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
DEI Minutes 9-5-24
PGCC 11-6-24

1 MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

TASK FORCE ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

REGULAR MEETING
Monday, September 9, 2024, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_DEI

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Bui called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. City Clerk/DEI Coordinator Kandell conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present in person: Chair Bui and Member Doneux.

Chair Bui stated Vice-Chair Fryberger requested remote appearance pursuant to AB 2449 for emergency circumstances as the Vice-Chair is caretaker to her spouse who has medical issues.

Pursuant to AB 2449, a quorum of the legislative body must approve a member to appear by teleconference for publicly disclosed “just causes” or in “emergency circumstances.” All votes must be taken by roll call.

Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui and seconded by Task Force Member Doneux, the Task Force voted to allow Vice-Chair Fryberger to appear by teleconference pursuant to AB 2449.

Motion carried 2-0, by the following vote:

Ayes: Chair Bui and Task Force Member Doneux.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Bui and seconded by Member Doneux, the Task Force voted to approve the Agenda.

Motion carried 3-0, by the following vote:

Ayes: Chair Bui, Vice-Chair Fryberger, and Task Force Member Doneux.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

3. PRESENTATIONS

4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) The Task Force made general announcements.

PGCC 11-6-24

2 5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Liaison Poduri made an announcement regarding the status of districts within the City and Measure Z.

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Carol Marquart, Tina Rau, Vince Tuminello, Fred Jealous, and Sue Parris.

A. Written General Public Comment

7. CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Task Force Member Doneux and seconded by Vice-Chair Fryberger, the Task Force voted to approve the Consent Agenda.

Motion carried 3-0, by the following vote:

Ayes: Chair Bui, Vice-Chair Fryberger, and Task Force Member Doneux.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

A. Minutes of the Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion August 12, 2024 Meeting Action: Approved minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

8. REGULAR AGENDA
A. DEI Task Force Work Plan
Public comment received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Colleen Ingram, Vince Tuminello, and Sue Parris.

Action: The Task Force reviewed the 2024-2025 Work Plan.

B. Appointment of Work Plan Subcommittees This item was tabled to a date uncertain due to the questioning of size of a subcommittee.

Public comment received from Vince Tuminello, Colleen Ingram, and Segolene.

Recommended Action: Appoint Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Work Plan Subcommittees.

9. NEXT MEETING: October 14, 2024 at 6:00 PM

10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m.

PGCC 11-6-24

3 Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
Approved by Chair:__________________________________________Date______________________ PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda No. 10 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager
MEETING DATE: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Recreation Board Meeting Minutes March 28, April 25, and July 25, 2024 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
Recreation Board Meeting Minutes March 28, 2024
Recreation Board Meeting Minutes April 25, 2024
Recreation Board Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024
PGCC 11-6-24

March 28, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Jay Tulley called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM. Present in the Chamber are Vice Chair Jay Tulley, Commissioner Ashley Gamble, and Commissioner Darryl Smith. Board Chair Colleen Goldsmith and Commissioner Ximena Waissbluth are absent. Recreation Program Manager Katie Clark is present. Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho is absent. Liaison Nick Smith is absent.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Upon motion by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Vice Chair Tully, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the agenda.

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Recreation Program Manager Clark reported that recruitment has closed for 30 and 40-hour jobs posted. New Summer hiring continues.

Summer camp registration opened on 3/27/24. See the website for more information and to register for summer offerings. Preschool for children 3-6 years of age has opened. More info is available online.

Spring Track and Field has opened. See the website for more information and to register. Vice Chair Jay Tulley thanked the Rotary Club for their gift to the Youth Center. Recreation Program Manager Clark is going to follow up on how the funds will be spent for this gift.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS None, Liaison Smith is absent.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Jealous thanked Board Chair Goldsmith for her support and advocated to have the high school courts double-lined for tennis and pickleball. Beth Walker advocated for improvements to Caledonia Park, including making it more inclusive, remodeling the bathrooms, using part of the grass area for a new sports court, using the existing basketball court for a skatepark, updating the chain-link fence, and putting in a dog park.

6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Recreation Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 2024 Upon motion by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Gamble, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes.

B. Recreation Board Meeting Minutes February 2024 Upon motion by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Gamble, the Rec Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes.

7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Received 2023-2024 Winter Youth Soccer Report from Andy Lipsig, Recreation Coordinator.

B. Received programming update report from Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager PGCC 11-6-24

C. Received Capital Improvements Projects report from Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager, because Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager, was absent. Upon motion by Vice Chair Tully and seconded by Commissioner Smith, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to add remodeling the bathrooms at Caledonia Park to the Capitol Improvements Projects, all in favor. March 28, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes
D. Selected George Washington Park playground equipment to complement the existing equipment for children between the ages of 2 and 5. Upon motion by Vice Chair Tully and seconded by Commissioner Smith, the Recreation Board voted unanimously for Park Planet Option 1.

E. Received Chinese Pavilion Project update from Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager, because Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager, was absent. During the public comments, Mike Ipson spoke about the origins and goals of the project. Lisa Ciani also commented that because the Chinese Pavilion Project is on the same site as Chautauqua Hall, the project should be reviewed by the Historic Resource Commission.

F. Received Chautauqua Hall Report from Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager, because Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager, was absent.

8. NEXT MEETING April 25, 2024 at 4:00 PM at the Council Chamber, City Hall at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA. 9. ADJOURNMENT Rec Board Meeting adjourned at 5:14 PM Respectfully submitted by Commissioner Gamble.

PGCC 11-6-24

April 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Colleen Goldsmith called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM. Present in the Chamber are Vice Chair Jay Tulley, Commissioner Ashley Gamble, Commissioner Darryl Smith, Commissioner Ximena Waissbluth, Recreation Program Manager Katie Clark, and Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho. Liaison Nick Smith is absent.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Upon motion by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Vice Chair Tulley, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the agenda.

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Katie announced:
• Two new staff members have joined the Recreation Department. Now, all four recreation coordinators are in place.
• Recreation staff, Marine and Clarissa both received their five-year awards.

Congratulations to them.
• The city is still looking for summer staff. Applicants are encouraged to apply; see the City website for more details.
• There are more spaces left for camps and swim lessons. If a waitlist forms, people are encouraged to add their names to the list. Specialty camps are also available.

Visit the City website for more programming information. • Preschool registration is open.
• The Track and Field program will have its first meet this weekend, April 27, 2024. • The fiscal calendar is on the city website.
• The Good Old Days and the Quilt Show are coming up. See their respective websites for more details.
• The Rotary Donation is gifted directly to the Youth Center and is utilized for repairs and maintenance.

Vice Chair Tulley and Chair Goldsmith commented that they would like to see gifts used for programming in the future.

Commissioner Smith announced the leadership program through ‘The Wave Program’ could implement a tree planting program.

Vice Chair Tulley said he would like to see the volunteer program include lifeguards if a lack of lifeguards restricts full programming.

Chair Goldsmith announced that the Chinese Pavilion project is moving forward through the City’s process.

Vice Chair Tulley announced the subcommittee meetings between PGUSD and the City have begun.

Mayor Peak announced:
• A new City Manager has been hired.
• Updates on the 5-way intersection
• As Vice Chair Tulley mentioned, the first joint PGUSD / City subcommittee meeting occurred, and the joint use agreement was discussed at the meeting. • May and June are busy with Capital Improvement Projects.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
None, Liaison Nick Smith is absent.

PGCC 11-6-24

April 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was one written, general public comment from Christy Thomas.

Inge Lorentzen Daumer spoke regarding not being able to hear some of the meeting and welcomed the new recreation staff.

6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Recreation Board Meeting Minutes from March 28, 2024. Upon motion by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Vice Chair Jay Tulley, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes.

7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. PG PONY Baseball and Softball Sponsorship Banners
The Recreation Board received a report from Commissioner Gamble. Public comment was given by Paul Black, President of PG PONY. He explained that sponsorship banners can potentially bring in $35,000 to $50,000 into the program. Inge Lorentzen Daumer spoke on the subject. Dan gave guidance as to how to get permitting for the 2025 baseball season, which involves PG PONY going through ARB. Upon motion by Vice Chair Tully, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to support sponsorship banners in ballfields, subject to ARB permitting.

B. Recreation Board Goals 2024
The Recreation Board received a report from Vice Chair Tulley. Public Comments include Lisa Ciani, who said that she supports the goals, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer, who said she could not hear someone talking. She also said she is interested in a walking tour, especially in the Great Tide Pool. The Recreation Board and Staff discussed the proposed goals and tasks. Upon motion from Chair Goldsmith and seconded by Commissioner Waissbluth, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the goals as outlined in Vice Chair Tully’s report.

8. NEXT MEETING
May 23, 2024, at 4:00 PM at the Council Chamber, City Hall at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA.

9. ADJOURNMENT
Rec Board Meeting adjourned at 5:48 PM
Respectfully submitted by Commissioner Gamble.

PGCC 11-6-24

July 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Colleen Goldsmith called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. Also present in the Chamber were Vice Chair Jay Tulley, Commissioner Ashley Gamble, Commissioner Darryl Smith, Commissioner Ximena Waissbluth, Recreation Program Manager Katie Clark, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho, Recreation Board Liaison Nick Smith, and Mayor Peake.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Colleen Goldsmith proposed item 7A be removed from the agenda because the topics will be discussed 7B. Upon motion by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Gamble, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the revised agenda.

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho announced updates to the Capital Improvement Projects:
• The Chinese Tea House project is moving forward
• The Parks and open space plan did not receive any funding. • The City Council will consider Capital Improvement Projects at one of the two September meetings, so there is still an opportunity for projects that did not get funded to be considered.
• Arbor Day was given $10,000 in funding.
• George Washington Storm Water improvements did not receive money. • Youth sports received a $10,000 budget.
• The backstop at Muni has been completed.
• The playground at GW is underway, construction will start in mid-late September.

Chair Goldsmith asked about the timing of the equipment installation.

Vice Chair Tulley asked about the unfunded Capital Improvement Projects. Chair Goldsmith asked a follow-up question about funding. Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Gho clarified that at one of the two September meetings, the City Council will be considering multiple budget items. There is a budget of $147,000 that be could allocated towards Capital Improvement Projects. There is still an opportunity for consideration of any of the projects that are placed on that list. The Recreation Board has the opportunity to reach out to Recreation Board Liaison Smith and lobby for specific projects.

Recreation Program Manager Clark announced:
• Thanks to the recreation staff and families for a great summer of programming. • Fall programs are available online.
• Eleven Special Events are scheduled, more information can be found online.

Vice Chair Tulley asked for clarifications about the pool closing.

Chair Goldsmith announced:
• Upcoming events include the Pet Parade, Youth Ambassador weekend, a dance, and Summer Lights.
• The Chinese Pavilion fundraising is set to begin this month, and the revised drawings of the pavilion are to be presented to the City Council for approval on August 7th • The Legends of the Autobahn was unexpectedly canceled. It has been moved to Seaside to the Black Horse Bayonet Golf Course.
• Pacific Grove resident Fred Jealous forwarded an e-mail he received from Josh Jordan, Assistant Superintendent, Pacific Grove Unified School District, to advise that PGCC 11-6-24

July 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes
Pacific Grove Adult Education will be holding its pickleball classes at the high school tennis courts in September. A decision is in the works to mark two of the tennis courts for pickleball, resulting in a total of four pickleball courts at the high school.

Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho clarified the timing of the Chinese Pavilion.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Liaison Nick Smith announced:
• Budget highlights
• 5-year lease for the Lover’s Point Snack Shack has been approved. • Approval of the roundabout option
• Advised the Recreation Board to make a recommendation for the August agenda and make a motion in order to put it under consideration.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was one written general public comment by Inge Lorentzen Daumer regarding draft minutes.

Inge Lorentzen Daumer spoke regarding Liaison Nick Smith’s presence at the meeting.

6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Recreation Board Meeting Minutes from April 25, 2024. Upon motion by Commissioner Vice Chair Tulley and seconded by Commissioner Smith, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes.

7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Received Resident Outreach Plan by Recreation Board Chair Goldsmith. No public comment was made. Commissioner Ximena Waissbluth made a suggestion about Commissioners ‘hosting’ a park and hearing feedback from the community in September. Chair Colleen Goldsmith agreed. Vice Chair Jay Tulley made comments about timing and added it would be great to have citizens survey the parks.

Commissioner Darryl Smith commented about encouraging participation. Vice Chair Tulley made comments clarifying Commissioner Waissbluth’s vision. Commissioner Waissbluth’s clarified her vision. Commissioner Smith encouraged the board to organize quickly. Chair Goldsmith agreed the weekend of September 28, 2024, would be a great date and encouraged a subcommittee to be formed. Commissioner Gamble suggested that the Lover’s Point Pool should be added to the Lover’s Point Park visit. Vice Chair Tulley added that he would like the Youth Center on the list. Further details were discussed. Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Gho said he was not able to comment on the event at this time. Vice Chair Tulley and Commissioner Waissbluth volunteered to be part of the subcommittee. There was a discussion about the subcommittee logistics.

8. NEXT MEETING
August 22, 2024, at 4:00 PM at the Council Chamber, City Hall at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA.

9. ADJOURNMENT
Rec Board Meeting adjourned at 4:56 PM
Draft minutes respectfully submitted by Commissioner Gamble.

PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda No. 11 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule for Police Chief CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Request City Attorney to read title of ordinance;

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold for first reading an Ordinance Amending Salary Classification Schedule to include salary for Police Chief;

3. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney;

4. 5. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove (City) is currently launching a recruitment with the assistance of the executive recruitment firm, Bob Murray and Associates, for its vacant position of Police Chief. The former Police Chief retired in October of this year.

The role of a Police Chief today involves navigating complex issues such as community policing, mental health crises, and evolving crime trends. In order to attract top candidates with proven track records and innovative approaches to law enforcement, the city needs to offer competitive salary and benefits.

A recent total compensation survey by Bryce Consulting Services shows that the current total compensation for the City’s Police Chief is under the market for our area.

Total compensation includes the following: base salary, other pays (such as management incentive), longevity pay, allowances, education pay incentives, vacation cash-out, employer contributions to health plans, and employer deferred compensation contributions.

Chief of Police Classification Comparison
City Total Monthly
Compensation
Hollister $27,613
Monterey $26,235
Santa Cruz $25,830
PGCC 11-6-24

Salinas $25,564
Seaside $25,098
Marina $24,899
Watsonville $21,877
Pacific Grove $21,763
Capitola $20,128
Data is as of 9/1/2024
The city has a practice of providing compensation at 95% of market median for total compensation. From the chart above, the city is below that target. In order to bring the Police Chief classification up to 95% of market median for total compensation ($24,066 monthly), the following proposed hourly rate is recommended.

Police Chief 1A 2B 3C 4D 5E 6F 7G
Current 78.20 82.11 86.21 90.52 95.05 99.80 104.79
Proposed 87.82 92.21 96.82 101.67 106.75 112.09 117.69
The recommended action is for the City Council to request the City Attorney to read the title of the Ordinance and to waive further reading and introduce for first reading an Ordinance Amending the Salary Classification Schedule for Police Chief.

The requested change to the salary classification schedule will only impact the Police Chief classification. All other classification hourly salary ranges will remain the same. To view the entire salary schedule, please refer to the City’s website. 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. Not approve the Ordinance amending the salary classification schedule for Police Chief.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

No impact to the FY 24/25 budget due to salary savings from several police department vacancies. The maximum total annual compensation increase using the top step of the proposed salary range compared to the top step of the current salary range is, $35,529. However, the successful candidate may not be hired at the top step and may be less than the maximum.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Ordinance
PGCC 11-6-24

ORDINANCE NO. 24-____

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AMENDING THE SALARY SCHEDULE TO ADD THE POLICE CHIEF

CLASSIFICATION
Findings

1. A recruitment is underway for the Police Chief classification; and

2. A recent salary survey shows the Police Chief classification in under market for total compensation; and

3. The City’s past practice is to target 95% of market median in total compensation; and

4. The salary schedule amendment seeks to establish a revised salary range for Police Chief and to bring total compensation to 95% of market median; and

5. Amendment to the salary schedule classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280; and

6. 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, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

SECTION 1. The foregoing findings of the City Council are incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in full.

PGCC 11-6-24

SECTION 2. The position classification plan approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to PGMC § 4.20.280 is amended for the Police Chief classification.

Police Chief 1A 2B 3C 4D 5E 6F 7G
New 87.82 92.21 96.82 101.67 106.75 112.09 117.69
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 on November 24, 2024.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this _____ day of November 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
PGCC 11-6-24

Agenda No. 11 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: November 06, 2024
SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program Amendment - Coastal Hazards CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15265, Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Local Coastal Program (LCP), including the text, policies, and figures of the Land Use Plan (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the Implementation Plan (IP/Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 23.90.140(b)).

DISCUSSION
In 2022, the City applied for and received a $100,000.00 grant from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to update its coastal hazard mapping. This effort is intended to support a technical update or refinement of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) current coastal hazard overlay data which is based on modeling data from 2008. While using the current data in the processing of Coastal Development Permits, it became apparent that it was too broad or insufficiently detailed to determine when a Coastal Hazards Report would be required for a particular project. Thus, the City proposed to update the LCP hazard mapping by conducting a more detailed site-specific coastal hazard analysis that would provide more accurate data consistent with current state guidance on sea level rise.

The updated coastal hazards mapping will assist City staff when determining which properties within the Coastal Zone are susceptible to coastal hazards and need to submit a Coastal Hazards Report at the time of the proposed development application, and which properties are unlikely to be impacted and may be exempted from this requirement. Put another way, this more detailed analysis will provide staff with the tools to correctly determine when additional study may be required. Hence, the associated LCP amendment is a limited technical refinement of the policies and implementing regulations that will be used by City staff.

Since this effort is intended as a limited technical update to better inform applicants and City staff, CCC staff has advised City staff to tie the LCP amendments specifically to the technical analysis. Therefore, the proposed amendment is a technical refinement to the LCP and does not include substantive policy changes. Additionally, this proposed LCP amendment is limited by a very defined scope that was formulated by the CCC staff and included as part of the grant agreement and timeline. Thus, the City Council resolution authorizing submittal of the grant application (attached) defined the scope as follows: "... to update the background information and data needed to prepare an amendment to Section

23.90.140 (Coastal Hazards) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and Chapter 2.1 (Coastal Hazards) of the PGCC 11-6-24

Land Use Plan (LUP), as needed, ...." Therefore, for this particular LCP amendment, the City needs to remain within the parameters of the grant agreement and timeline (see Timeline below).

The grant funding was used to hire Integral Consulting to perform modeling and analysis of the City's coastline. Integral Consulting completed the technical analysis and presented an overview of the modeling methodology and key coastal hazard analysis results to the Planning Commission on August 8, 2024. The final report (Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results, August 19, 2024) is attached. City staff forwarded all public comments received prior to and on August 8, 2024, to the CCC staff to inform the collaborative discussion while drafting the LCP amendment.

Based on the results of the technical analysis, City staff and CCC staff prepared minor technical refinements to the text, policies, and figures of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP/PGMC Chapter 23.90). City staff coordinated extensively with the CCC staff to ensure that the final LCP amendments would be acceptable to the Coastal Commission and result in timely certification without any modifications. These minor amendments to the LCP are intended to implement the updated technical analysis and tools used to determine coastal hazard vulnerability. The draft amendments (attached) consist primarily of the following:

1) The addition of a definition for Critical Public Infrastructure (LUP Section 1.10).

This definition will assist City staff in determining what constitutes Critical Public Infrastructure, which will be evaluated at a higher standard than development on private property. CCC staff provided guidance on the types of infrastructure to include in the definition.

2) Updates to the data and information sources (LUP Section 2.1.1).

The addition or deletion of sources used to prepare the analysis of coastal hazards. 3) Update to LUP Figure 3 (LUP Section 2.1.2).

LUP Figure 3 is updated to reflect the new technical analysis and data. It's also important to remember that LUP Figure 3 is a static "snapshot" and that City staff will use GIS data to complete an initial assessment.

4) Text revisions to Policy HAZ-12 (LUP Section 2.1.4).

LUP Policy HAZ-12 would be amended to include a paragraph regarding critical public infrastructure and to differentiate between the level of review required for private and public development. Within the GIS data, an additional safety setback distance has been added to the calendar year 2100 erosion hazard zone to approximate a more severe sea level rise scenario for critical public infrastructure. LUP Policies HAZ-1 through HAZ-11 and HAZ-13 through HAZ-16 remain valid as written. No changes to these policies are necessary to continue LCP implementation nor to implement the updated coastal hazards technical analysis.

5) Text revisions to IP/PGMC Section 23.90.140(b).

This revision shifts the responsibility for completion of an initial assessment to City staff. As currently written, an initial assessment prepared and submitted by an applicant would still require review and confirmation by City staff.

PGCC 11-6-24

As intended and defined by the grant agreement, this is a minor technical update to the coastal hazards sections of the LCP.

On October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the draft amendments as required by PGMC Section 23.84.020, and voted 6-0-1 (6 yes, 0 no, and 1 absent) to initiate the LCP amendment and recommend the City Council approve the amendments as proposed (Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2024-004 and 2024-005).

Timeline
April 20, 2022 – City Council directed staff to apply for grant funding November 9, 2022 – CCC grant agreement signed and funding awarded to the City February 3, 2023 – City approves contract with Integral Consulting to perform technical analysis and mapping
January 29, 2024 – CCC approved grant amendment to extend the project deadline to March 30, 2025
June 4, 2024 – Draft technical analysis provided to City and CCC for review August 8, 2024 – Draft technical analysis presented to the Planning Commission for public review and comment
August 19, 2024 – Final technical analysis and mapping completed October 10, 2024 – Public hearing at the Planning Commission for proposed LCP amendments November 6, 2024 – Public hearing at the City Council for proposed LCP amendments Next Steps
Pursuant to the City Council's direction, CDD staff will prepare and submit an LCP amendment packet to the CCC for consideration and certification. Following CCC certification, the LCP amendment would return to the City Council for final adoption. The anticipated completion date for the LCP Amendment process is past the current grant agreement deadline; however, if necessary, CCC staff has indicated that the grant agreement deadline could be extended to, yet not beyond, June 30, 2025.

Noticing
City staff completed the required noticing pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Sections

23.86.040 and 23.90.070. On October 24, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Monterey County Weekly and posted at City Hall. In this case, no permanent structural development is proposed; therefore, story poles and netting are not warranted or required.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 (Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs), an amendment to a Local Coastal Program is statutorily exempt. Per Section 15265, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal Act by any local government necessary for the preparation and PGCC 11-6-24

adoption of a local coastal program. This section shifts the burden of CEQA compliance from the local agency to the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15251(f), the Coastal Commission is identified as a certified regulatory program which meets the requirements of Public Resources Code involving the preparation, approval, and certification of local coastal programs. As such, the Coastal Commission report that will be prepared for the LCP Amendment qualifies as a functional equivalent environmental review document with regard to CEQA. The analysis in the report (Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results) prepared for the LCP Amendment provides the Coastal Commission with the technical background information they require to analyze the proposed LCP Amendment. Therefore, the City is not required to take further CEQA action on the proposed LCP Amendment.

OPTIONS
Adopt the Resolution of Intent to amend the Local Coastal Program as proposed (staff recommendation); or

1. 2. Discuss and take other action related to this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with the processing and implementation of the proposed LCP Amendment related to Coastal Hazards. The $100,000 grant funding covered the costs associated with Integral Consulting's coastal mapping and analysis.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Draft Resolution of Intent
Draft LCP Amendment - LUP
Draft LUP Figure 3
Draft LCP Amendment - IP Ordinance
Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results
Planning Commission Resolutions 2024-004 and 2024-005
City Council Resolution 22-018 (Grant Application Authorization) Public Comment
PGCC 11-6-24

RESOLUTION 24 - ___

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PACIFIC GROVE, PURSUANT TO PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

23.84, TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE TEXT, POLICIES, AND FIGURES OF THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP SECTIONS 1.10, 2.1.1,

2.1.2, AND 2.1.4) AND TEXT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 23.90 (SECTION 23.90.140(b))

RECITALS

1. Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of each city.

2. On October 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove ("City” or “City Council") adopted a city-wide General Plan ("General Plan") pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development law.

3. Section 30500 of the Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction.

4. On January 15, 2020, the City adopted the LCP, comprised of a Land Use Plan (“LUP”) and Implementation Plan (“IP”), pursuant to the California Coastal Act and consistent with Section 30512 of the Public Resources Code. This separate mandate replaces policy guidance for most policy topics found in the General Plan and is applied in the Coastal Zone. The primary policy topics of noise and housing (to include other minor specific policies) are not addressed under the LCP - Coastal Act mandate although they are still applicable in the Coastal Zone under the jurisdiction of the General Plan – Planning Zoning and Development law mandate.

5. On March 11, 2020, the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”) acknowledged certification of the City’s LCP.

6. Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code provides for amendments to adopted LCP’s in accordance with certain procedures. Proposed amendments are to be submitted to and processed by the Coastal Commission in accordance with applicable procedures. The City may make no more than three submittals of proposed amendments per calendar year; however, each submittal may contain multiple amendments. To date, the City has made no submittals of LCP amendments in 2024.

7. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30000 et seq., and Title 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (“PGMC”), the City may amend the adopted LCP provided the City follows certain procedures, including that the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) hold a noticed public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment of the LCP, and that the City Council hold a public hearing to determine whether to adopt a resolution of intent to approve, and if affirmative, submit the proposed amendment to the Coastal Commission for certification. The Coastal Commission may certify the amendments or may suggest modifications. The amendments become final and effective only after the Council acknowledges certification, including any suggested modifications, and formally adopts PGCC 11-6-24

the amendments and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission confirms, without objection by the Coastal Commission, that the City’s action conforms to the Coastal Commission’s certification order.

8. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65350 et seq., the City may amend the adopted General Plan provided the City follows certain procedures, including that the Planning Commission hold a noticed public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment of the General Plan. In this case, the proposed LCP amendment is consistent with the General Plan and no amendment to the General Plan is needed.

9. All policies of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan have been reviewed by the Community Development Department staff to ensure that the proposed amendments maintain the compatibility and internal consistency of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan.

10. Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.84.060, Findings, and

23.84.070, Amendments to the Local Coastal Program, in considering the proposed LCP Amendment, the City Council makes the applicable findings as described below.

11. In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 (Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs), an amendment to a Local Coastal Program is statutorily exempt. Per Section 15265, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal Act by any local government necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program. This section shifts the burden of CEQA compliance from the local agency to the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15251(f), the Coastal Commission is identified as a certified regulatory program which meets the requirements of Public Resources Code involving the preparation, approval, and certification of local coastal programs. As such, the Coastal Commission report that will be prepared for the LCP Amendment qualifies as a functional equivalent environmental review document with regard to CEQA. The analysis in the report (Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results) prepared for the LCP Amendment provides the Coastal Commission with the technical background information they require to analyze the proposed LCP Amendment. Therefore, the City is not required to take further CEQA action on the proposed LCP Amendment.

12. The City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan sections proposed to be amended, in a version showing the changes with strikethrough and underline and in a “clean” version, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The proposed ordinance amending the Implementation Plan is also attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

13. This is a minor technical update to the coastal hazard sections of the Local Coastal Program and is intended to implement the updated technical analysis and tools used to determine coastal hazard vulnerability. These amendments to the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) do the following:

PGCC 11-6-24

a. Add a definition for Critical Public Infrastructure. b. Update the data and information sources.
c. Update LUP Figure 3.
d. Revise the text of LUP Policy HAZ-12.
e. Revise the text of IP Section 23.90.140(b).

14. On October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider initiating amendments to the City’s LCP, as required by PGMC Section

23.84.020, and making a recommendation to the City Council regarding approving amendments to the LCP, including amending the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section

23.90.140(b)). On September 26, 2024, at least 10 days before the first public hearing date, notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Monterey County Weekly. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0-1 (6 yes, 0 no, and 1 absent), initiated the LCP amendments and recommended approval (Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2024-004 and 2024-005). The Planning Commission resolutions were transmitted to the City Council as part of the November 6, 2024, agenda report.

15. On November 6, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a resolution of intent to adopt the proposed amendments to the text, policies, and figures of the LUP and the text of the IP. On October 24, 2024, at least 10 days before the first public hearing date, notice of the hearing before the City Council was published in the Monterey County Weekly and posted at City Hall.

16. This amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519).

FINDINGS
Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.84.060, Findings, and

23.84.070, Amendments to the Local Coastal Program, in considering the proposed LCP Amendment, the City Council considered the Planning Commission resolutions, agenda report, written and oral testimony, and administrative record as a whole and, on that basis, finds that:

General Plan or Local Coastal Program Amendments

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the local coastal program;

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and

3. The site is physically suitable (including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested and anticipated land uses.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and the certified local coastal program; and
PGCC 11-6-24

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove, hereby:

1. Determines that each of the Recitals and Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Recitals and Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. Adopts a resolution of intent to adopt the amended sections of the Land Use Plan, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

3. Adopts a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, to amend the Implementation Plan.

4. Certifies that the amendments are intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformance with the Coastal Act.

5. Directs staff to transmit the proposed amendments to the California Coastal Commission for certification together with materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE on this 6TH day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove
Draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment
Coastal Hazards Technical Refinements
Land Use Plan (LUP):

1.10 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE LAND USE PLAN
Critical Public Infrastructure: Processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets, and services essential to the health, safety, security, or economic well-being of the City. Examples include, yet are not limited to, the following: potable water treatment facilities and distribution networks, wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater collection (i.e., sewer main lines) networks, stormwater infrastructure, public roads, other public utilities (e.g., gas, electrical, and internet/telephone), and public sidewalks/trails associated with public roads. Examples of non-critical public infrastructure would include, yet are not limited to, the following: public sidewalks/trails not associated with public roads and public parks.

2.1 COASTAL HAZARDS (HAZ)

2.1.1 Background – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise
Large winter waves and bluff erosion have long been hazardous to the built environment, as well as to natural systems and resource management in the Coastal Zone. Now, added to those historical challenges are changes brought by global climate change and the effects of sea level rise. Global climate change is amplifying other threats to ocean and coastal ecosystems, including erosion, pollution, and habitat loss.

This Land Use Plan contains policies to respond to and address these hazards in the City’s planning and permitting process.

Among the most significant natural hazards along the Pacific Grove coastline are large winter storms and waves, and ongoing bluff and shoreline erosion. Impacts associated with storms, waves and erosion have fallen disproportionately on the built environment and natural systems at the ocean-land interface. In addition, the Hopkins Marine Station has long been listed as being particularly vulnerable to tsunamis.

The City’s 2015 Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis outlines many of these challenges but indicates that tsunamis have a relatively lower potential for damage to life and property due to the configuration of Monterey Bay and orientation of the Pacific Grove Coastline.

The geologic foundation of the entire Monterey Peninsula is a granitic rock called granodiorite overlain by marine terrace deposits. The marine terrace deposits are typically between 2 and 12 feet thick and capped by topsoil. The marine terrace deposits general consist of uncemented, friable, thinly laminate to thickly bedded silty very fine to coarse grained sand with pebbles and cobbles. The upper six inches to four feet of the marine terrace deposits are dark brown and clay rich due to topsoil. The base is generally marked in spots by a cobble and pebble rich deposit where the terrace deposits rest on top of the wave-cut platform. The contact between the granodiorite rock and marine terrace deposits typically has a seaward gradient. The terrace deposits exposed in the upper bluff are extremely erodible and unstable. When ocean wave run up impacts the terrace deposits, they erode, particularly near the base. That process undermines the terrace deposits and the upper terrace deposits slump downward onto the bedrock platform.

PGCC 11-6-24

The granodiorite rock is sturdy in earthquakes, resists waves, and generally breaks up into sand and gravel rather than mud so the water is clear. The upper portion of the granite is highly weathered and portions are prone to erosion. At depth the granite is less weathered and is very erosion resistant. Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone also includes areas of sand dune on the Asilomar coast, and marine terrace deposits along both the bay and ocean shores. There are rock bluffs consisting of bedrock that is slowly eroding and decomposing, which separates the exposed rocky shore and beaches from the coastal terrace and dune landforms immediately inland. There are also rock outcrops and promontories, boulders, offshore sea stacks, and a string of islets off of point Pinos, all of which contribute to an extraordinarily scenic coastline. The granodiorite erodes very slowly, replenishing the sand supply which is not fed by the littoral drift that disperses into other beaches on the southern shore of Monterey Bay.

The Asilomar Dunes complex is a distinct geologic formation that extends from Point Pinos to Cypress Point in Pebble Beach. In Pacific Grove, the Asilomar Dunes encompass the area between Asilomar Avenue and the shoreline. The dune landforms are composed almost entirely of pure quartz sand, which accounts for the beautiful white sand beaches whose well-rounded frosted quartz grains indicate they were at one time in a dune field in the open air, away from the water.

The exposed granite rock mass at the Pacific Grove shoreline is generally erosion-resistant, except for localized erosion where wave action at faults can break the rock. This fracturing is minimal both on the City’s northeast shoreline along Monterey Bay, due to its orientation away from the predominantly northwest direction of the waves; and on the Asilomar coastline along the open ocean, due to the many off-shore reefs that dissipate the wave energy. The most rapid erosion along the shoreline has occurred in the natural coastal terrace deposits and midden, and various areas of rock and soil fill. A combination of ground squirrel and other animal activities; wave and tidal action; stormwater runoff and heavy pedestrian use has resulted in localized shoreline erosion sometimes affecting trails, bluffs, parking lots, and even the road. The City has historically sought to remedy this problem through a sea wall and rip rap revetment construction program and other shoreline armoring. As a result, the natural and scenic character of the Bay shoreline within the City has been altered to some extent by shoreline armoring that has been installed between Point Pinos and the Monterey Bay Aquarium at the City’s eastern boundary.

While bluff erosion along the Pacific Grove shoreline has generally been a localized problem, the winter storms of 1982-83 resulted in extensive damage. Rip rap revetments were washed out, storm drains were damaged, and parking areas were destroyed by the strong waves from these storms. Except for Hopkins Marine Station, a portion of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, two single family residences, and sewer pumping stations, the immediate shoreline area is used predominately for open space recreational purposes.

Damage from strong storm surges at Hopkins Marine Monterey Herald pictures of storm surges crashing Station. Photo Credit - Gary Griggs, Ph.D., over Ocean View Boulevard, Pacific Grove CA. Photo presentation: Sea-Level Rise, Shifting Shorelines and Credit- Monterey Herald, 2001.

El Niño 11/11/15
PGCC 11-6-24

The natural coastal hazards and sea level rise policies in the Land Use Plan recognize the potential risks and hazards associated with development along Pacific Grove’s coast, including the probable impact of climate change and associated sea level rise. Land Use Plan policies both govern potential development in this area and address potential impacts. The best available science at the time of Coastal Development Permit review, including data and information recommended for use by the California Adaptation Planning Guide and the California Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance must be used to help determine sea levels and potential hazards until such time as new data and information is available. This data may include:
 Cal-Adapt interactive website designed to provide data and information produced by the State's scientific and research community that provides a view of how climate change might affect California at the local level;
 The Ocean Protection Council’s 2024 Science and Policy Update on Sea Level Guidance: State of California Sea Level Guidance;
 The National Research Council’s 2012 Report: Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future; and
 California Geologic Survey’s California Tsunami Hazard Area Maps for Monterey County;  Local data as available, which in the case of Pacific Grove currently includes the data set from the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Final Draft 2014 and the City of Pacific Grove Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, completed in January 2015;  National Data Buoy Center (Scripps Institution of Oceanography Station 46249 – Cabrillo Point, and NDBC Station 46042 – Monterey Bay); and
 Monterey Tide Gauge (NOAA Station 9413450).

All the above listed reports project that climate change will intensify a variety of coastal hazards, as a result of sea level rise.

A Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis Report, as well as a Background Report, both dated January 12, 2015 were prepared in support of the Local Coastal Program. Potential climate changes that may affect Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone include increases in temperature, shifts in precipitation, higher sea level, more severe storms, and ocean acidification. Although a secondary impact of climate change, Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone is also at increased risk of exposure to wildfire. Specific changes are difficult to predict, and considerable complexities arise when calculating potential risks.

The City’s Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis found that Pacific Grove’s development pattern, particularly the City’s coastal park and trail system, in conjunction with setting development back from the coast, well-position the City’s residential and commercial areas to help withstand effects of sea level rise and tsunami inundation. Additionally, the City’s location on granitic bluffs also limits erosion susceptibility. Nevertheless, the City may be susceptible to potential impacts, as all areas along California’s coast are subject to some level of inherent hazards risk. The climate change and vulnerability assessment modeling showed potential flooding along the City’s coastline, including the City’s coastal park system and developed residential areas. Additionally, modeling utilized in the City’s Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis showed erosion potential, again primarily along the City’s north shore, which, in the long run, would affect the City’s coastal parks and trails along with areas developed with residential, commercial and institutional uses. Figure 3, Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise, shows the areas of potential hazards related to projected sea level rise as identified in the Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis report prepared in 20152024.

PGCC 11-6-24

The best available and most recent scientific information with respect to the effects of long-range sea level rise, including the coastal hazards analysis identified in the Background Report and Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis, must be considered in the preparation of findings and recommendations for all geologic, geotechnical, hydrologic, and engineering investigations. Furthermore, the City will continue to consider the findings of future scientific studies that increase and refine the body of knowledge regarding potential sea level rise and coastal hazards in Pacific Grove and along the Monterey Bay, and possible responses to it. Additionally, the City may utilize the variety of academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations in the region with expertise in climate change such as the University of California Santa Cruz, California State University Monterey Bay, Naval Postgraduate School, Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey, Stanford-Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford-Center for Ocean Solutions, the Nature Conservancy, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, to assist the City with data collection and research regarding the potential impacts of climate change and possible adaptation responses. Also, data from the Monterey Tide Gauge (NOAA Station 9413450) which was installed in 1973 can be utilized to report local sea levels and track sea level rise.

2.1.2 Coastal Act Policies – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise Various parts of the Coastal Act support policies in Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan that address climate change, sea level rise, and coastal hazards. Additionally, the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance provides information for local municipalities updating Local Coastal Programs. The guidance document recognizes that the Coastal Act supports:

1. Use of best available science to guide decisions;

2. Minimization of coastal hazards through planning and development standards;

3. Maximization of protection of public access, recreation, public views and other coastal resources; and

4. Maximization of agency coordination and public participation.

Coastal Act policies relating to shoreline processes and natural hazards require that shoreline protection structures, such as seawalls, only be permitted where they serve coastal-dependent uses or protect existing structures or beaches in danger from erosion. The Coastal Act also requires that shoreline protection structures be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply (Public Resources Code §30235). Further, other coastal policies require that any development, such as shoreline protective devices, among other things, be sited and designed to:

1. Prevent degrading impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (Public Resources Code §30240);

2. Mitigate adverse impacts to archeological resources (Public Resources Code §30244);

3. Protect ocean views, minimize the alteration of natural land forms, and be visually compatible with and subordinate to the surrounding character of the area (Public Resources Code §30251); and

4. Provide, and not interfere with, maximum public recreational access to and along the shoreline (Public Resources Code §§30210, 30211 and 30212).

Finally, Coastal Act policies require that all new development minimize risks to life and property in hazard areas (Public Resources Code §30253(a)) and not create, nor contribute to, erosion, instability, destruction of a site, or require protective devices that substantially alter natural bluff and cliff forms (Public Resources Code §30253(b)).

PGCC 11-6-24

Figure 3: Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise Coastal Hazards - Sea Level Rise with Potential Coastal Wave, Erosion, and Tsunami Hazards

2.1.3 General Plan and Other Policies – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise The Pacific Grove General Plan commits ocean front lands to open space and recreational uses. The combination of public ownership and existing City policies and ordinances severely limit physical structures on the immediate shoreline area. The effect of the policies and public ownership along the shoreline is to help reduce the risks to life and property from storm and tsunami hazards and bluff erosion.

However, certain policy areas, such as the effect of the construction of shoreline protective devices, among others, are not specifically covered by the Pacific Grove General Plan and are addressed in this Land Use Plan, the Implementation Plan, and the future Shoreline Management Plan. The Pacific Grove shoreline is an irreplaceable resource and its preservation as a natural living shoreline is a matter of great public importance. Therefore, the intent of the Local Coastal Program is to ensure that shoreline protective devices and other shoreline altering development are only utilized in limited situations and only when all coastal resource impacts are appropriately and proportionately mitigated, consistent with this Section.

PGCC 11-6-24

2.1.4 Land Use Plan Policies – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise The following Land Use Plan policies on shoreline hazards supplement existing City policies and regulations by providing for:

New development and redevelopment that is sited and designed to be safe from potential coastal hazards and in a manner that may not require future shoreline protective devices; Specific attention to the possible effects of shoreline protective device construction; Implementation of City policy calling for detailed park planning along the shoreline in order to maximize public access, find methods to minimize bluff erosion, and reduce other potential impacts on coastal resources; and
Expanded policies addressing protection from storm wave and tsunami hazards and the impacts associated with sea level rise while protecting coastal resources.

Tsunami Hazard Zone Sign. Photo Credit: www.NOAA.gov
HAZ-1. The City will continue to gather information on the effects of sea level rise and other coastal hazards on Pacific Grove’s shoreline, including identifying vulnerable areas, structures, facilities, and resources, specifically areas with priority uses such as public access and recreation resources, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and existing and planned sites for public infrastructure. Updates to the LCP, including through any vulnerability assessment, shall use the best available science, including the best available scientific estimates of expected sea level rise and potential resultant impacts. The information gathered should address multiple time frame horizons (e.g. 2025, 2050, and 2100) and sea level rise scenarios, as appropriate and feasible.

HAZ-2. Based on the information gathered over time per Policy HAZ-1, the City will conduct an evaluation at least every 10 years (and in response to significant storm events resulting in erosion) as to whether additional policies and other actions for inclusion in the LCP are necessary in order to better address the impacts of sea level rise and other coastal hazards, particularly those related to erosion.

As applicable, such periodic evaluations may result in LCP changes to hazard policies designed to:
a) require relocation of existing or planned development, including development already protected by shoreline protective devices, to safer locations or higher elevations and restoring shoreline areas to natural conditions if feasible, including working with entities that plan or operate infrastructure;
PGCC 11-6-24

b) modify allowable land uses in hazardous areas, and modify siting and design standards for development, to avoid and minimize risks and better protect coastal resources; c) better protect wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; d) update standards for determining erosion rates;
e) ensure long term protection of the function and connectivity of existing public recreational access facilities and resources; and
f) require modifications to existing shoreline protective devices to ensure that such devices are meeting then-current standards and are functioning in a way that has the least impact on coastal resources as possible, including evaluation of possible removal and shoreline restoration.

HAZ-3. The City will monitor sea level rise and request changes to the Coastal Zone boundary, as appropriate and feasible. The City will minimize the need for construction of new shoreline protective devices through management and, where necessary, restoration of the coastal park lands, including control of pedestrian use, parking, and ground squirrel and other rodent, vermin, or animal activities.

HAZ-4. The City will maintain a warning system and procedures for protection of life and property in coastal areas that are subject to storm and tsunami hazard, including informing visitors to the shoreline of the potential danger of large waves, and will coordinate closely with the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services on the implementation and future amendment of the Monterey County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. New development subject to tsunami hazards shall prepare a tsunami preparedness plan that describes evacuation procedures and other protocols for addressing a potential tsunami event.

HAZ-5. The City will endeavor to coordinate planning and management of the coastal park lands with adjacent jurisdictions and other public agencies such as the City of Monterey, Monterey County, State Water Resources Control Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (Monterey Bay Sanctuary), Bureau of Land Management (California Coastal National Monument), the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the United States Coast Guard, and the California State Lands Commission, which has decision-making authority on policies that affect land below the mean high tide line.

The City should also coordinate planning and management of the coastal park lands on its downcoast borders with the Pebble Beach Company and other large private landowners, where feasible.

HAZ-6. The City will prepare a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), consistent with the parameters set forth in HAZ-2, to evaluate potential actions to guide the management of public parklands along the shoreline while considering the effects of sea level rise, best protecting coastal resources, as well as circulation and utility infrastructure. The SMP, when approved by the Coastal Commission, will function as a tool to help maximize public access and protect coastal resources along the City’s shoreline.

HAZ-7. The City will strive to minimize erosion of the shoreline by directing people to use public access pathways and stairways. The City will coordinate public recreation and access points with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that public access use is designed to mitigate adverse impacts to the California Coastal National Monument and its geological, biological, cultural, and visual resources.

PGCC 11-6-24

HAZ-8. Development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development shall also assure stability and structural integrity, shall not create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site, and shall not substantially alter natural landforms. Public infrastructure, public recreational access facilities, and coastal-dependent development shall be developed in a manner consistent with Policy HAZ-10, and may qualify for shoreline protective devices only if in imminent danger from erosion consistent with HAZ-15 and HAZ-16. All other development shall be developed in a manner consistent with Policy HAZ-9.

HAZ-9. Development shall be sited and designed to avoid impacts from coastal hazards, including but not limited to, erosion, episodic and long-term shoreline retreat, flooding, inundation, storm waves, high seas, tidal scour, and tsunamis, including in relation to sea level rise, over the life of the development. As a condition of approval for all coastal development that at some point during its lifetime may be subject to coastal hazards, the Applicant shall record a deed restriction against the properties involved in the application acknowledging that the development site may be subject to coastal hazards.

HAZ-10. New public recreational access facilities (e.g. public parks, trails, and paths), public infrastructure (e.g. public roads, sidewalks, and public utilities), and coastal-dependent development (any development or use that requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function such as Hopkins Marine Station) shall be sited and designed in such a way as to limit potential impacts to coastal resources over their lifetime. See also Policy HAZ-15.

As appropriate, such development may be allowed within shoreline areas only if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. The development shall to the maximum extent feasible be sited and designed to be removable without significant damage to shoreline and/or bluff areas.

2. The development shall only be allowed when it will not cause, expand, or accelerate instability of a bluff.

HAZ-11. In order to minimize potential damage to life and property from coastal hazards, development and the use of land below the 20-foot elevation (as measured from mean high tide) shall be limited to coastal dependent and coastal related development, open space, low intensity public recreational access facilities and uses, public infrastructure, allowable shoreline armoring and coastal access facilities, and, at Lovers Point, Hopkins Marine Station, and Monterey Bay Aquarium, coastal dependent development. Other legally established existing development and uses below the 20-foot elevation may remain, but shall be relocated above the 20-foot elevation (or simply removed) should it become threatened by coastal hazards or should they redevelop.

Costs for relocation shall be borne by the property owner. Regardless, no new major critical public infrastructure (e.g., new water/wastewater treatment facilities) shall be allowed seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or Sunset Drive. To the maximum extent feasible, existing major critical public infrastructure shall be relocated outside of this area.

HAZ-12. Development proposed in potential hazard areas, including but not limited to those that are mapped as hazardous in Figure 3, shall be evaluated for potential coastal hazards at the site using intermediate-high scenario sea level rise projections, based on all readily available information and the most current and recently adopted best available science (e.g., State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance). If the initial evaluation determines that the proposed PGCC 11-6-24

development may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime, a site-specific hazards report prepared by a qualified geologist/engineer is required, the purpose of which is to ensure that such development can be built in a manner consistent with applicable LCP coastal hazards policies. Proposed development on properties that are determined not to be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime would not be subject to additional site-specific hazards analysis.

With respect to critical public infrastructure specifically, such development shall be evaluated for potential coastal hazards using high scenario sea level rise projections, based on readily available information and the most current and recently adopted available science (e.g., State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance). If the initial evaluation determines that the proposed critical public infrastructure development may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime, a site specific hazards report prepared by a qualified geologist/engineer is required, the purpose of which is to ensure that such development can be built in a manner consistent with applicable LCP coastal hazards policies and will be safe from extreme sea level rise projections either through its design or through the development of an adaptation plan to be implemented in the future.

HAZ-13. Repair and maintenance of existing legally established shoreline protective devices (including restacking dislodged rock rip-rap in revetments within the approved revetment profile and texturing/contouring a vertical seawall per the approved surface treatment, but not including replacement, augmentation, addition or expansion) shall only be allowed if the shoreline protective device is required to protect public infrastructure, public recreational access facilities, and coastal-dependent development in critical danger from erosion (i.e., when a sitespecific analysis determines the development would be unsafe to use or occupy within two years). If it is not so required, then the shoreline protective device shall be removed and the affected area restored. Any such allowable repair and maintenance projects shall include measures to address and mitigate for any coastal resource impacts the device is having, including with respect to public views and public recreational access.

HAZ-14. New shoreline protective device development (including replacement, augmentation, addition and expansion associated with an existing device) shall only be allowed where required to protect public recreational facilities (e.g., public parks trails, and paths), public infrastructure (e.g., public roads, sidewalks, and public utilities), and coastal dependent development (e.g., certain Hopkins Marine Station development) in imminent danger from erosion. Such devices shall only be utilized if no other feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative is available, such as relocation, beach nourishment, non-structural drainage and native landscape improvements, or other similar non-structural options. Such non-structural options shall be used and prioritized wherever possible to protect coastal resources, including coastal habitats, public recreational uses, and public access to the coast.

Where such non-structural options are not feasible in whole or in part, soft structural alternatives (e.g., sand bags, vegetation, etc.) shall be used and prioritized wherever possible before more significant shoreline protective devices (including, but not limited to, seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, groins, bluff retention devices, and piers/caisson foundation systems).

Shoreline protective devices shall not be constructed to protect non coastal-dependent development, other than public recreational facilities and public infrastructure that do not otherwise constitute coastal-dependent development, or where other measures can adequately mitigate erosion hazards. All construction associated with shoreline protective devices and repair or maintenance or augmentation of existing protection devices shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts to the California Coastal National Monument and its geological, biological, cultural and visual resources.

PGCC 11-6-24

HAZ-15. New shoreline protective devices shall be sited and designed to avoid coastal resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible, including through eliminating or mitigating all adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply (including sand and beach area that are lost through the shoreline protective device’s physical encroachment on a beach, fixing of the back beach, and prevention of new beach formation in areas where the bluff/shoreline would have otherwise naturally eroded, and the loss of sand-generating bluff/shoreline materials that would have entered the sand supply system absent the device); protecting and enhancing public recreational access; protecting and enhancing public views; minimizing alteration of, and be visually subordinate to, the natural character of the shoreline; avoiding impacts to archeological resources; and protecting other coastal resources as much as possible.

Shoreline protective devices shall be required to mitigate impacts to shoreline sand supply, public access and recreation, and any other relevant coastal resource impacts in 20-year increments, starting with the building permit completion certification date. Permittees shall apply for a coastal permit amendment prior to expiration of each 20-year mitigation period, proposing mitigation for coastal resource impacts associated with retention of the shoreline protective device beyond the preceding 20-year mitigation period, and such application shall include consideration of alternative feasible mitigation measures in which the permittee can modify the shoreline protective device to lessen its impacts on coastal resources, including potential removal.

HAZ-16. When development is proposed, property owners with any structures that are associated with and/or protected by existing shoreline protective devices shall be required to provide an assessment of the continued efficacy of such devices, including an evaluation of whether the devices can be removed or modified (and affected areas restored to natural conditions) in light of the development proposed (e.g., if the development is being relocated inland) to better protect coastal resources, in terms of public recreational access resources, while still providing necessary coastal hazard protection. If the assessment indicates that they can be so removed or modified, including if the assessment indicates that there is greater coastal resource benefit to removal or modification of the shoreline protective device, then the removal or modification shall be required as a condition of any approval for the development. In all cases, shoreline protective devices shall only be authorized until the time when the qualifying development that is protected by such a device is no longer present and/or no longer requires armoring.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan
Coastal Hazards - Sea Level Rise with Potential Coastal Wave, Erosion, and Tsunami Hazards Sources
Hazards: Coastal Hazards with SLR - Integral Consulting, 2024. Tsunami Hazards - CGS, 2022. Aerial - EagleView Technologies, 2022.

Coastal Wave Hazard Zone
Sea Level Rise in Feet (year)
Z
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

ASILOMAR
STATE
BEACH
STATE
POINT

PINOS PINOS
OTTER

POINT POINT
LOVERS

POINT POINT
POINT

CABRILLO CABRILLO
Legend
S
U

NSET DR

DEL MONTE
BLV
D

OCEAN VIEW BLVD

CENTRAL AVE

LIGHTHOUSE AVE
17 MILE DR

FOREST AVE

SINEX AVE
CRESPI
POND

MONTEREY BAY ONTEREY BAY

LIGHTHOUSE AVE

ARENA AVE

ASILOMAR AVE

CORAL ST
Coastal Zone Boundary
City Boundary
Rising Tides Line - King Tide + 4' of SLR
4' (2085 - 2100+)
3' (2075 - 2100+)
2' (2065 - 2090)
1' (2050 - 2065)
Baseline (2020)
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone
Sea Level Rise in Feet (year)

0.4' (2040)

1.2' (2060)

2.7' (2080)

4.4' (2100)
Low-Lying FloodProne Area
Tsunami Evacuation Line
Coastal Erosion Factor
of Safety Line
Figure 3
Figure 3: Coastal Hazards - Sea Level Rise with Potential Coastal Wave, Erosion, and Tsunami Hazards PGCC 11-6-24

ORDINANCE NO. 25 - ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTION 23.90.140 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE (PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM)

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Section 30500 of the Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) adopted an LCP (City Council Resolution No. 20-001), comprised of a Land Use Plan (“LUP”) and Implementation Plan (“IP”), pursuant to the California Coastal Act and consistent with Section 30512 of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”) acknowledged certification of the City’s LCP; and
WHEREAS, the LCP is final, adopted and certified and took effect on the certification date of March 11, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City determined it appropriate to codify the IP as Chapter 23.90 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), and did so via the adoption of Council Ordinance No. 20-023; and WHEREAS, Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code and the PGMC Chapter 23.84 provide for amendments to adopted LCP’s; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove (“Planning Commission”) considered, at a duly noticed public hearing, the initiation of an LCP amendment, as required by PGMC Section 23.84.020, to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)), and the Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed LCP amendment (Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2024-004 and 2024-005); and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (“City Council”) considered, at a duly noticed public hearing, the proposed LCP amendment to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)); and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in the Monterey County Weekly and posted at City Hall on October 24, 2024; and WHEREAS, in considering the proposed LCP Amendment, the City Council considered the Planning Commission resolutions, the agenda report, the written and oral testimony, and the administrative record as a whole; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 (Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs), an amendment to a Local Coastal Program is statutorily exempt; and WHEREAS, this amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519).

PGCC 11-6-24

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings pursuant to PGMC 23.84.060:
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and the certified local coastal program;
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and
3) The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

SECTION 3. The Pacific Grove Municipal Code is amended as follows:

Chapter 23.90
Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan
Section 23.90.140 Coastal Hazards
(a) In order to protect life, property, and coastal resources from coastal hazards, and to maintain consistency with the LCP’s land use plan (LUP), development shall conform to all applicable land use plan coastal hazards policies and the following requirements:
(b) Applications for All Development Potentially Subject to Coastal Hazards. (1) Initial Coastal Hazards Assessment. City staff The applicant shall conduct submit an initial site assessment screening to determine whether the site may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime (generally over at least the next 75 years). The initial site assessment shall be based on readily available information and the most current and recently adopted available science (e.g., State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance).

The screening shall include a review of CDPs issued or applied for at the subject site and immediate vicinity, technical reports, resource maps, aerial photographs, site inspection, current coastal hazard GIS layers, and the LCP’s coastal hazard map in LUP Figure 3. Maps can be used as a resource for identification of coastal hazard areas; however, absence of mapping cannot alone be considered absence of hazard, and local site conditions must be examined at the time of coastal permit application using the best available science.
(2) Coastal Hazards Report. Where the initial site assessment reveals that the proposed development is located on or seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or Sunset Drive, mapped within LUP Figure 3, and/or otherwise may be subject to coastal hazards over the next 75 years, a site-specific coastal hazards report (report) shall be prepared. The report shall at a minimum provide for:
….

SECTION 4. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement effect this Ordinance.

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 PGCC 11-6-24

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 more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following passage and adoption hereof and following certification by the California Coastal Commission.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS ____ day of _______________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
_______________, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 11-6-24

Normal
City of Pacific Grove
Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results
Integral Consulting Inc.
200 Washington Street
Suite 201
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
August 19, 2024
PGCC 11-6-24

Normal

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Integral Consulting Inc.
• David L. Revell, Ph.D., Project Director
• Matt Jamieson, GIS and Project Manager
• Ashley Ellenson, Ph.D., Coastal Scientist
• Rae Taylor-Burns, Ph.D., Coastal Scientist
Walls Land+Water, LLC
• Scott Walls, MLA. EP, Aerial Survey
City of Pacific Grove
• Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
• Garrett McCown, Associate Planner & RFP Coordinator
This project was produced from a grant awarded in 2022 to the City of Pacific Grove by the California Coastal Commission (CCC Grant Agreement LCP-22-02). The authors of this report wish to thank the staff from the City of Pacific Grove as well as the CCC for their support and guidance for this study.

A draft of this report was submitted July 10, 2024.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 ii

CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS ....................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... viii 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 COASTAL HAZARDS ................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1 Coastal Cliff Erosion ....................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.2 Wave Environment ......................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.3 Sea Level Rise Projections ............................................................................. 1-6 2 TASK 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND COASTAL HAZARD MODELING METHODS............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 PRIOR STUDIES ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 COASTAL MODELING PARAMETERS ......................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Backshore Conditions (Soils and Geology) and Erosion Processes ............. 2-2

2.2.2 Historical Shoreline Positions and Erosion Rates ......................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Elevations, Slopes, and Cliff Top /Toe Locations .......................................... 2-5

2.2.4 Roughness ..................................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.5 Nearshore Waves and Total Water Levels ..................................................... 2-7

2.3 EROSION PROJECTION METHODS ........................................................................... 2-8

2.3.1 Trenhaile Model ............................................................................................. 2-8

2.3.2 Energy Flux Model ......................................................................................... 2-8

2.3.3 Hackney Model .............................................................................................. 2-9

2.4 WAVE RUNUP METHODS ........................................................................................... 2-9

2.5 TIDAL INUNDATION METHODS ............................................................................. 2-10

2.6 COASTAL HAZARD MODEL CAVEATS ..................................................................... 2-11

2.7 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS ............................................................ 2-12 3 TASK 2 COASTAL HAZARD MODELING RESULTS ..................................................... 3-1

3.1 TASK 2.1 COASTAL EROSION HAZARDS RESULTS ................................................... 3-1

3.2 COASTAL EROSION EVENT AT THE GREAT TIDE POOL AND THE ASILOMAR DUNES STATE BEACH IN THE WINTER OF 2022/23 ................................................ 3-7

3.3 TASK 2.2 COASTAL WAVE HAZARDS AND TIDAL INUNDATION .............................. 3-9 PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 iii

3.4 TASK 2.3 TIDAL INUNDATION FINDINGS ............................................................. 3-12 4 TASK 3 REVISED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.................................................... 4-1 5 NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 5-1 6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 6-1

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Neighborhood delineations within the City of Pacific Grove. ............................ 1-2 Figure 2. Diagram depicting dominant wave types, directions, and seasons for Pacific Grove and Monterey Bay. Source: Storlazzi and Wingfield (2005). ................... 1-5 Figure 3. Intermediate, intermediate-high, and high predictions of future sea level rise, based on draft OPC guidance (OPC and OST 2024). These three scenarios are recommended by the State of California to inform appropriate sea level rise planning and project decisions. The erosion models in this analysis are based on the intermediate-high scenario. ......................................................................... 1-7 Figure 4. Average annual erosion rates in feet per year across each of the 105 coastal sections of the City (1945-2023). ...................................................................... 2-4 Figure 5. Agreement between R2% determined from the XBeach simulations and FEMA BFE levels. ......................................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 6. City-wide erosion, modeled to 2100. The three columns represent results from the three different erosion models that were utilized, and the three rows represent maximum, mean, and minimum modeled erosion. .......................... 3-1 Figure 7. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 0.4 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2040. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion. ........................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 8. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 1.2 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2060. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion. ........................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 9. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 2.7 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2080. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion. ........................................................................................ 3-4 PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 v
Figure 10. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 4.4 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2100. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion. ........................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 11. Coastal erosion hazard zones with sea level rise. .............................................. 3-6 Figure 12. Left: Portions of the damaged Asilomar Coastal Trail boardwalk that had been moved by wave action. Right: Erosion of the trail and dune near the Great Tide Pool, January 2023. Photo Source: City of Pacific Grove, 2023........................ 3-7 Figure 13. Documentation of an erosion event on January 5, 2023, at the Great Tide Pool area near Ocean View Blvd and Lighthouse Ave. Aerial image is pre-storm - December 2022. ................................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 14. Documentation of erosion at the Asilomar Gazebo. Left: November 2015.

Center: Erosion at the toe of the terrace is evident – January 2023. Right:

Significant erosion of the terrace is evident with the failure of the wooden retaining wall and the steepening of the terrace face – February 2024. .......... 3-9 Figure 15. An example of XBeach results on a transect near Clyte St in Pacific Grove, showing the R2% wave locations on the transect bathymetry with five different sea level rise scenarios. ...................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 16. Coastal wave hazards from a 1% annual chance storm, rising tides, and the lowlying flood-prone area hazard zones with sea level rise. ................................. 3-11 PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Probabilistic projections for future sea level rise by year for Monterey.

Table 2. Time horizons and associated sea level rise (SLR) scenarios used in the coastal wave runup and erosion hazard analysis in this study. Wave runup uses a linear sea level rise horizon, while coastal erosion uses a linear timeline.

Table 3. Elevation models considered in this study.

Table 4. Maximum and 98th percentile (R2%) runup heights across all 14 transects with all five sea level rise scenarios.

Table 5. Cumulative acres of parcel exposed to erosion by year (sea level rise in ft).

Table 6. Number of structures exposed to coastal wave hazards by sea level rise horizon in feet (ranges of years projected).

Table 7. Cumulative acres of parcel exposed to coastal wave hazards by sea level rise horizon in feet (ranges of year projected).

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 vii

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
backshore Extreme inland limit of the beach
BFE Base flood elevation
bluff Soft unconsolidated materials found in the marine terrace deposits
cliff Hard consolidated rock made primarily of granodiorite in Pacific Grove
DEM Topographic digital elevation model
dunes Areas where wave action and onshore winds have led to sand deposition, located landward of the beach
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988; the vertical control datum used for surveying.

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
total water level The combined effect of wave run-up height, storm surge, tides, and sea level elevations
TRI Terrain Ruggedness Index
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral), with funding from the California Coastal Commission (Grant Agreement LCP-22-02), has conducted a detailed city-wide, parcel-scale coastal hazard modeling assessment to support the City of Pacific Grove (City) in updating their LCP and coastal hazard overlay and updating their parcel vulnerability assessment. The impetus for this project came from several sea level rise reports submitted as part of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) applications under the 2020 revised Local Coastal Program for the City. Each of these site-specific technical reports identified substantially less risk from coastal hazards than previously identified, placed an extra reporting burden on local landowners, and required additional City planning resources which ultimately slowed down the local planning decision making process.

This assessment relied on the 2024 California sea level rise guidance for the intermediate-high sea level rise scenario and analyzed up to 4.4 feet of sea level rise by 2100. The following technical memorandum provides a synopsis of the methods and major findings for Task 1, Conceptual Model; Task 2, Coastal Hazard Modeling; and Task 3, Revised Vulnerability Assessment.

The conceptual site model development evaluated previous shoreline research, and relevant publicly available data sets, and collected new topographic data to provide a site model of detailed shoreline characteristics, nearshore conditions, and history of coastal hazards along the City’s coastline. The coastal hazard modeling task applied the conceptual shoreline site model information coupled with an ensemble of cliff erosion models to project future coastal cliff erosion hazard extents and to document uncertainties in those estimates over a range of sea level rise scenarios. In addition, coastal storm wave runup extents and future high tide inundation based on future sea level rise scenarios were mapped. Results of the coastal hazard exposure modeling was then applied in a revised vulnerability assessment, which identified the at risk land use parcels and structures exposed to coastal hazards. The timing of impacts to parcels and structures are reported by future sea level rise elevations and a corresponding time period in the future.

This mapping and vulnerability assessment is intended to update the prior coastal hazard overlay conducted by EMC Planning in 2015 for the Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program Update. The 2015 coastal hazard overlay mapped a total of 87 parcels and 70 structures exposed to coastal storm wave flood hazards by 2100 with 4.6 feet of sea level rise. This new coastal storm wave flood hazard modeling effort identified 69 parcels and 28 structures exposed to coastal wave hazards by 2100 with 4.0 feet of sea level rise. While the sea level rise horizons between both studies are slightly different, this is a reduction of 18 parcels and 42 structures. The 2015 coastal erosion hazard overlay only extended from Hopkins Marine Station to Point Pinos and mapped a total of 319 parcels and 290 structures exposed by 2100 with 4.6 feet of sea level rise. This revised coastal erosion hazard modeling effort took a more PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 ix
site-specific approach, taking into account more detailed wave modeling, wave dissipation from the offshore rocks, and the hard rock geology of the City’s shoreline, and projected a significant reduction in erosion from the previous study. This study mapped the entirety of the City’s shoreline and identified 23 parcels, and only one structure exposed to coastal erosion hazards by 2100 with 4.4 feet of sea level rise.

The projected coastal storm wave flood hazards in both studies show many similarities and identify elevated exposure in a few distinct areas including at Hopkins Marine Station, the Beach Tract / Fairway Homes neighborhood west of Shell Ave, the Asilomar Dunes Neighborhood north of Arena Ave, and Point Pinos and the Pacific Grove Golf Links. Parcels of particularly high risk in these areas may benefit from additional site-specific technical studies.

The assessment has been conducted on a City-wide scale and should serve as a parcel-level screening tool for both the City and its landowners to identify properties that may require more detailed parcel-specific analysis and possibly include additional project elements to address these future hazards. The benefit would be a more streamlined planning process and transparency in decision-making for local landowners.

DISCLAIMER
This information is part of an ongoing process to understand and prepare for coastal hazards and sea level rise for the City of Pacific Grove. The coastal hazard layers are intended as planning tools to illustrate projected hazard exposure under a variety of future sea level rise scenarios. This information is advisory in nature and not binding with respect to any actions that the City of Pacific Grove, the California Coastal Commission, California State Lands Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, US Army Corps of Engineers, or any other regulatory agencies may take.

There are inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and projecting future coastal hazards and their potential impacts. The spatial data layers are based on model outputs and cannot account for all complex and dynamic ocean, terrestrial, and anthropogenic processes or for future adaptation approaches such as shoreline protection upgrades. In addition, these data layers do not include projected flooding from rainfall-induced runoff events, erosion or flooding precipitated by land use change, or tsunamis. Flooding due to sea level rise and the various coastal hazards is possible in areas outside of those projected in this study, and even the best projections cannot guarantee the safety of an individual parcel or structure.

Although every effort was made to review all parcel and structure data received from other sources, neither the City of Pacific Grove nor its consultant, Integral Consulting Inc., can verify the completeness or accuracy of all spatial data. For this reason, we do not accept responsibility for any errors, omissions, or positional inaccuracies. The City of Pacific Grove and Integral Consulting Inc. assumes no liability for any damages alleged to have occurred due to PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 x
reliance upon the information contained herein. Users of this data are strongly cautioned to verify all information.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
This study is part of the City of Pacific Grove’s (City) Coastal Hazards Overlay, and this technical memorandum serves to complete the deliverables for Task 1, Conceptual Site Model; Task 2, Coastal Hazard Modeling; and Task 3, Revised Vulnerability Assessment. This technical memorandum projects long-term cliff erosion, storm wave flooding, and tidal inundation with sea level rise, as well as summarizes the risk to land use parcels and structures. The coastal hazard modeling was completed using a suite of state-of-the-science models and incorporated data and input from three previous technical and research studies, as well as incorporating the latest sea level rise guidance from the State of California.

1.2 STUDY AREA
For the purposes of this study, the coastline is organized into three coastal sections as described in the City neighborhood planning areas. Study area sections are as follows and can be seen in Figure 1:
• The western section of the City is characterized by a rocky shoreline with pocket beaches and backed by aeolian dunes perched on top of hard granodiorite bedrock and wide expanses of offshore rock (average surf zone width of 245 ft). This area experiences higher wave energy than other areas of the city. The mean cliff height in this region is 19 feet. This area extends from the southern City boundary at Asilomar Dunes to Crespi Pond in the north. This area is henceforth referred to as Section 1, or Asilomar Dunes.
• The northern section of the City is characterized by a mix of seawalls and riprap, natural rocky promontories and pocket beaches, backed by low terrace cliffs, and less offshore rock than Section 1 (average surf zone width of 117 ft). The mean cliff height in this region is 22 feet. This area extends from Crespi Pond to Lovers Point Park. This area is henceforth referred to as Section 2, or Beach Tract / Fairway Homes. • The eastern section of the City is characterized by a mostly rocky and armored coastline, and backed by low terrace cliffs and less offshore rock than Section 1 (average surf zone width of 107 ft). The mean cliff height in this region is 23 feet. This area extends from Lovers Point Park to Hopkins Marine Station. This area is henceforth referred to as Section 3, or Pacific Grove Retreat.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-2
Figure 1. Neighborhood delineations within the City of Pacific Grove.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-3

1.3 COASTAL HAZARDS
This study evaluated the following coastal hazards:
• Coastal cliff erosion—includes erosion of the cliff and is projected every 20 years into the future (2040, 2060, 2080, and 2100) with up to 4.4 ft of sea level rise. Also includes a projection of a 30-year erosion setback line, which can be interpreted as the area exposed to erosion in the near term and can be used as a factor of safety. • Coastal wave flooding—includes coastal wave flooding inundation and is representative of wave runup during a 100-year coastal storm event.1 Coastal wave flooding was modeled using X Beach 1D with 1, 2, 3, and 4 ft of sea level rise. The volume of water filling the low-lying area of Crespi Pond and the Pacific Grove Golf Links was not modeled explicitly but mapped as a low-lying flood-prone area based on the interpretation of maximum wave runup elevations, contour elevations, and expected future flooding.
• Tidal inundation—evaluated using the highest astronomical tide (7.21 ft NAVD88) with 4 ft of sea level rise for a total of 11.21 ft NAVD88.

1.3.1 Coastal Cliff Erosion
Coastal erosion is a complex process shaped by various factors resulting in the ongoing retreat of cliffs. The factors that contribute to erosion encompass marine forces (such as wave energy), terrestrial forces (including rainfall, groundwater flow, and burrowing animals), and terrestrial conditions (like geologic rock type, grain size, joint density, or the presence of coastal armoring). Together, these elements are the primary factors that contribute to coastal cliff erosion. Two erosion processes occur simultaneously along the cliff-backed shoreline: the first is the erosion of the softer marine terrace deposits (or bluffs) and aeolian dunes that overlay the hard slowly erodible granodiorite bedrock within the City, and the second involves the long-term weathering and dislodging of rocks in the granodiorite bedrock, which occurs at a very slow rate. In conjunction, these processes will lead to the inland retreat of the cliff along the City’s shoreline.

1.3.2 Wave Environment
The waves that approach Pacific Grove are characterized by three dominant types depending on their wave source and direction (Figure 2). Most wave energy approaches the study site from the northwest and west (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005) by waves generated by cyclones in the North Pacific and tends to peak in wave height during the winter months (up to 26 ft).

During the summer, southern hemisphere waves produce smaller waves with longer wave periods (greater than 20 seconds). Between April and October, mid-sized and slightly shorter 1 Wave run up extents were mapped at the 2% runup elevation, or R2%.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-4
periods of wind waves also approach Pacific Grove from the northwest (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005).

The wave climate fluctuates over interannual and longer time periods with ocean-atmosphere oscillations like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). These storms tend to follow a more southerly track when El Niño conditions are strongest, resulting in more erosion potential for the study area. El Niño conditions generally occur every three to seven years, with particularly intense events every 10 to 20 years (Storlazzi and Griggs 1998). There are also longer-term climatic oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, warm phases of which have been associated with periods of increased storm frequency and intensity, resulting in accelerated erosion rates (Russell and Griggs 2013).

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-5
Figure 2. Diagram depicting dominant wave types, directions, and seasons for Pacific Grove and Monterey Bay. Source: Storlazzi and Wingfield (2005).

The National Flood Insurance Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is intended to reduce future flood damage by encouraging local governments to adopt floodplain management regulatory programs. The regulatory Flood Insurance Rate Maps identify base flood elevations according to a 1%-annual-chance total water level elevation (formerly known as 100-year storm wave elevation) at the coast. The base flood elevations in the City vary from 16 to 27 ft based on the varying wave exposure, with the PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-6
highest base flood elevations (BFEs) at the rocky headlands off of Point Pinos and Point Cabrillo.

1.3.3 Sea Level Rise Projections
The projected acceleration of sea level rise in the near term is a result of human-induced climate change and is driven by the thermal expansion of ocean water and the melting of terrestrial ice as the Earth warms. Global climate models indicate that California will see significant sea level rise during this century, with the exact magnitude depending on factors such as global greenhouse gas emissions and the Earth’s energy imbalance, the rate at which oceans absorb heat, land ice melting rates, movement of land-based ice sheets, and local land subsidence or uplift.

According to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the central coast of California experienced about 8 in. of sea level rise from 1900 to 2020, and the rate is projected to increase over this century (OEHHA 2022). In January 2024, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) issued the Draft State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update meant to assist local jurisdictions with sea level rise planning.

Based on this most recent State guidance, this study evaluated an intermediate-high scenario, described as a scenario in which rapid ice sheet loss processes contribute to sea level rise, with a probability of up to 20% that 2100 sea level rise will reach 4.4 ft by 2100 (see Table 1 and Figure 3).

Table 1. Probabilistic projections for future sea level rise by year for Monterey.

From Draft OPC 2024 Guidance
Year Intermediate-High Scenario
2020 0 (baseline)
2040 0.4
2060 1.2
2080 2.7
2100 4.4
Source: OPC and OST (2024). Projected sea levels using the Monterey tide gauge. Values have been adjusted by shifting the baseline year from 2000 to 2020. Sea level rise rates are referenced to high emissions scenarios.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 1-7
Figure 3. Intermediate, intermediate-high, and high predictions of future sea level rise, based on draft OPC guidance (OPC and OST 2024). These three scenarios are recommended by the State of California to inform appropriate sea level rise planning and project decisions.

The erosion models in this analysis are based on the intermediate-high scenario.

The coastal hazard models applied in this study utilize different approaches in associating sea level rise and time. For the erosion study, a time component is integrated into the model, which necessitates selecting a specific sea level rise curve for the analysis. For this study, the intermediate-high sea level rise curve was incorporated into the coastal erosion model. For the wave runup in this study, only specific water levels are required for the model, and these associated sea level rise elevations can occur over a range of future years. For the sake of simplicity and consistency with current State guidance sea level rise scenarios of existing conditions (0), and 1, 2, 3, and 4 ft of sea level rise were used. The sea level rise elevation values and associated estimated ranges of future years of occurrence used in these models are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Time horizons and associated sea level rise (SLR) scenarios used in the coastal wave runup and erosion hazard analysis in this study. Wave runup uses a linear sea level rise horizon, while coastal erosion uses a linear timeline.

Wave Runup Hazards Coastal Erosion Hazards
Year(s) Sea Level Rise Year Sea Level Rise
2020 0 2020 0
2050–2065 1 2040 0.4
2065–2090 2 2060 1.2
2075–2100+ 3 2080 2.7
2085–2100+ 4 2100 4.4
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110
Feet of SLR
Intermediate Intermediate-high High
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-1
2 TASK 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND COASTAL HAZARD

MODELING METHODS
This section provides an overview of the City’s coastal setting and describes the prior research that informed this study as well as the data sources that were utilized in the characterization of the City’s shoreline to best apply the detailed coastal hazard modeling and vulnerability assessment.

2.1 PRIOR STUDIES
Three site-specific shoreline and coastal hazard assessments were conducted recently: a comprehensive shoreline assessment as part of the City’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), a coastal trail study and plan around Point Pinos, and a site-specific coastal hazards assessment of Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station. Together, these prior studies provided input into the conceptual site model and helped to create a detailed characterization of the shoreline, with estimates of historical erosion rates, determination of 30-year erosion setback distances, and projected wave runup extents with sea level rise. The estimates of historical erosion rates from these previous studies were incorporated into this study, and the estimates of wave runup were used as a secondary data reference point to check model results. Details on these prior assessments can be found below:
• The Point Pinos Coastal Trail Project (2017) included a coastal hazard assessment conducted by Haro, Kasunich & Associates, Geologists and Geotechnical Engineers (HKA), and Timothy C. Best, Engineering Geologist, CEG. As part of the long-term trail planning effort, HKA and Timothy Best produced a geologic and technical assessment that determined historical erosion rates and a 30-year erosion setback line for the area from the Great Tide Pool to Coral Street.
• The Pacific Grove Shoreline Master Plan (2020) was led by City staff along with a multi-disciplinary team of consultants including Eisen|Letunic, Moffatt & Nichol, and Dudek. This effort produced estimates of short-term and long-term coastal erosion and a 30-year erosion setback line for the area from Asilomar Avenue to Hopkins Marine Station. It also determined runup extents and overtopping volumes along the coast from Jewell Avenue to Hopkins Marine Station.
• Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report (2021) was led by Stanford’s Land, Buildings & Real Estate with a team of Integral Consulting and HKA. The study projected maximum wave runup extents and flood depths, coastal erosion extents with sea level rise, and site-specific vulnerabilities.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-2

2.2 COASTAL MODELING PARAMETERS
Coastal cliff erosion modeling relies on simplifications of reality that relate cliff retreat to multiple geomorphic, geologic and coastal process (waves and tides) related factors. These factors include:
• Geomorphic: cross-shore profiles, cliff-top and -toe elevations, foreshore slopes, surf zone widths, surf zone roughness, backshore types, and historical shoreline positions • Coastal processes: tides, wave heights, wave direction and wave periods contributing to wave runup and a sum total water level elevation As sea level rises the frequency, duration and elevation of total water levels is expected to increase and accelerate coastal cliff erosion.

Detailed below are the methods used to determine these model parameters.

2.2.1 Backshore Conditions (Soils and Geology) and Erosion Processes The City has a highly crenulated coastline with rocky headlands, offshore rocks, nearshore reefs and small pocket beaches backed by dune fields and low marine terraces that are approximately 3 to 10 ft in depth (Pacific Grove 2017). The coastline stretches for approximately 5 miles from Asilomar State Beach in the west to the Hopkins Marine Station in the east. The crest of the coastal dunes and cliffs varies from approximately 16.8 to 24.3 ft NAVD88, with an average crest height of 21.3 ft NAVD88. The contact between the bedrock and dune / marine terrace typically has a seaward gradient; however, in some local areas, portions of the bedrock platform slope gently landward, such as around Crespi Pond Along the coast, pocket beaches composed of sand, cobble, and boulders appear among rocky headlands with offshore rocks that are relatively resistant to coastal erosion. The overlying, terrace and dune sediments are much more erosion-prone. The bedrock along the contact between bedrock and terrace sediments is highly weathered due to the relatively high exposure to wave attack (Pacific Grove 2017). For erosion modeling and mapping purposes, projected erosion distances represent the crest of the cliff or dune.

Historically, the City has experienced episodic erosion from large storm wave events. As a result, the City’s coastline has a variety of shoreline protective devices and also many locations where erosion repairs placed artificial fill (often fronted by coastal armoring) that lies above the bedrock material. These locations often correspond with the oceanfront parking areas which provide important coastal access amenities. The areas where these repairs have occurred or coastal armoring has been placed often show cliff accretion, which is impossible by natural means, and this posed some difficulty in discerning natural historical erosion rates and storm erosion distances. Where data was available, historical erosion rates that preceded the shoreline fill and armoring were used for these sections.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-3

2.2.2 Historical Shoreline Positions and Erosion Rates
Historical erosion rates underpin the cliff erosion modeling and so much care was taken to document baseline erosion conditions, which are then accelerated for future cliff erosion modeling. To determine historical erosion rates for the shoreline, this study relied on three sources of information:

1. For the section of the coast that corresponds with the Point Pinos Trail (from the Great Tide Pool to Coral Street), HKA and Best (2017) determined historical erosion rates based on shoreline changes measured from aerial photographs from 1945, 1976, and 2016.

2. For the section of coast that corresponds with the Pacific Grove Recreation Trail (from Asilomar Avenue near Crespi Pond to Hopkins Marine Station), Dudek and Moffat & Nichol (2020) determined historical erosion rates based on shoreline changes measured from aerial photographs from 1945, 1976, and 2003.

3. For the entire City’s coastline, Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral) determined historical erosion rates based on an endpoint erosion rate method relying on aerial photographs from 1945 and the project-derived topographic lidar and associated air photos collected in December 2022 and January 2023.

To determine historical erosion rates, the reference historical aerial photographs were georeferenced, and cliff-top positions were digitized manually. For the more recent data years, such as 2022/2023, the cliff-top position was digitized manually using a range of imagery products including a high-resolution multidimensional hillshade derived from a project-specific LiDAR survey, a change in slope surface, and a high-resolution orthoimage. For the section of the coastline from the Great Tide Pool to Coral Street, this study relied on the cliff-top position determined from the Point Pinos Trail project.

To generate statistics on historical erosion rates, the Integral team utilized the Digital Shoreline Assessment System (DSAS), an ArcGIS-based tool developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Within DSAS, digital shorelines are used as inputs, and the tool calculates erosion rates using a variety of statistical methods based on how the shoreline position has changed measured across 10-foot spaced cross-shore transects2
.

Erosion rates were aggregated for each of these smaller backshore sections from each of the three studies above. Each of these subsections was organized by similarities in orientation, backshore type (armor or unarmored), geology, exposure to wave attack, and presence/absence of offshore rocks to dissipate wave energy. In total, 105 separate backshore areas were used to parcel location-specific erosion hazard distances, and the historical erosion rates for these areas are shown in Figure 4.
2 A total of 2,473 transects were used to calculate rates for the DSAS analysis PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-4
Figure 4. Average annual erosion rates in feet per year across each of the 105 coastal sections of the City (1945-2023).

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-5
For this study, the Integral team attempted to locate and georeferenced the best available historical aerial photograph series. However, because there is still significant horizontal and vertical uncertainty in any historical aerial data set, as well as differences in how erosion rates are measured, this study incorporated the erosion rate calculations by the HKA and Dudek teams as well. Dudek estimated erosion rates from Asilomar Avenue eastward, and HKA estimated erosion rates from Lighthouse Avenue to Coral Street. Thus, for all segments of the coast except for the open coast south of Lighthouse Avenue, there were at least two calculations of historical erosion rates from distinct studies. The Integral team utilized these calculations to develop an estimate of uncertainty in historical erosion rates. For areas with two or three historical erosion rates, we used the range of historical erosion rate estimates to determine a minimum, a mean, and a maximum historical erosion rate. For the Asilomar Dunes area, where Integral’s historical erosion rate calculations were the only ones available, our team calculated the minimum and maximum values by adding and subtracting the standard deviation between all of the studies. For some segments of the coast, erosion rates were zero or positive due to armoring and filling, and for these areas, the team filtered the historical rate to 1 mm/year, or 0.04 in./year, so as not to project future accretion.

2.2.3 Elevations, Slopes, and Cliff Top /Toe Locations
Digital elevation models (DEMs) were used to develop cross-shore profiles, which informed the elevations of important cliff and dune features. These data were sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Digital Coast website and from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments as well as the project specific collected topographic survey described above.

This effort was also informed by the collection of elevation data and orthographic imagery from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV drone) equipped with a camera to collect imagery, and a LiDAR sensor3 to collect topographic elevations. The UAV was flown in December 2022 and January 2023 during king low tides and resulted in a DEM of 1-ft resolution. This DEM was utilized to develop inputs for the wave runup and erosion modeling tasks, including cliff and dune crest and toe locations, foreshore slopes, and surf zone roughness.

The elevation models considered in this study are presented in Table 3. 3 The LiDAR sensor uses light from a laser to measure the distance to the earth’s surface, enabling measurements of topographic elevation.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-6
Table 3 Elevation models considered in this study.

Source Year Season
Integral and Walls Land+Water UAV LiDAR
Flight
2022/2023 Winter
Federal Emergency Management Agency 2018 Spring
U.S. Geological Survey 2016 Spring
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NCMP 2014 Winter
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NCMP 2010/2011 Winter
Association of Monterey Area Governments 2010 Summer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NCMP 2009 Fall
U.S. Geological Survey 1998 Spring
U.S. Geological Survey 1997 Fall
USGS CoNED Topobathy Multiple Variable
Locations of the toe and top of the cliff or armoring structure were manually digitized from high-resolution aerial imagery collected by a UAV flight done by Integral in 2022-2023 and verified using a multidimensional hillshade derived from the LiDAR survey, a change in slope surface, and a high-resolution orthoimage. For the section of the coast that corresponds with the Point Pinos Trail (from the Great Tide Pool to Coral Street), this study relied on the previously surveyed top of the cliff or armor location from HKA and Best (2017).

2.2.4 Roughness
Surf zone roughness is a key model input, especially in a location like Pacific Grove, where the surf zone is often composed of numerous offshore rocks, boulder beaches, rocky reefs, and promontories. A determination of roughness is important because rougher surf zones can dissipate wave energy more effectively, reducing their wave energy and erosive potential on the backshore. To determine surf zone roughness, the team utilized a spatial analysis approach developed by Riley et al. (1999), known as Riley’s Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI). This approach calculates TRI from a DEM by determining the elevation change between adjacent grid cells. In landscapes where there are large elevation differences between grid cells, the TRI will have a higher value. The Integral team calculated a rolling mean of the TRI along each of the 105 coastal segments and then used this as a basis to determine Manning’s friction coefficient, which is used in the coastal erosion and wave runup modeling efforts.

This translation from the TRI to Manning’s friction coefficient took into consideration other local factors that are not encapsulated in Riley’s TRI, such as the average width of the surf zone, the presence of offshore rocks seaward of the surf zone, and the presence of vertical coastal armoring. In addition, we also incorporated findings from HKA (2017) and Dudek (2018), who published field observation characterizations on the wave dissipation potential of each backshore segment. Integral used the inputs to adjust the TRI values at specific locations to better match local conditions. The resulting TRI values were then remapped to Manning’s PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-7
friction coefficient to values that are appropriate for very rough and rocky shorelines. This range was determined from a study by Gon et al. (2020) on the wave dissipation by bottom friction along the Pacific Grove shoreline. The resulting bottom friction dissipation coefficient across the shoreline varied from approximately 0.05 to 0.1, with a median value of 0.068.

These roughness adjustments resulted in more realistic estimates of local wave energy impacting the shoreline and causing erosion. Over time as sea level rises this wave energy dissipation is anticipated to decrease as depths increase.

2.2.5 Nearshore Waves and Total Water Levels
An important measure of coastal wave hazards and an important forcing for the erosion models is the total water level elevation and nearshore wave values. Nearshore waves including wave direction, height, and period were derived from two sources:

1. Unpublished data from the USGS CoSMoS model (Hegermiller et al. 2017) included wave parameters at 12 locations across the City’s shoreline. This timeseries of nearshore waves, including hindcast data for 1980–2010 and projected data for 2010– 2100, was developed using downscaled regional models.

2. SWAN is a wave model developed at Delft University of Technology that computes random, short-crested, wind-generated waves in coastal regions. This model was used by Integral to determine nearshore wave characteristics that were needed for the wave runup and erosion projections. The SWAN model relied on NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center Buoy 46240 records from 1987 to 2019 and bathymetry data from NOAA. The wave period and directional spreading were held constant across the 15 simulations, set as 16 seconds and 25°, respectively. Wind speed and direction were held constant as well, set as 9.9 m/s and 269°, based on the same data buoy used for the extreme value analysis (EVA). These 15 simulations were used to create a wave height, wave period, and mean wave direction lookup table for locations at the 10 m isobath along the shoreline.

For the coastal erosion model, total water levels, which are the combined effect of wave runup height, storm surge, tides, and sea level, were determined for all 105 transects by combining the mean astronomical tide (7.21 ft NAVD88), wave timeseries (2000-2020), and a wave runup values using the Dodet et al. (2018) wave runup equation. This runup formulation was chosen because it was created using observations taken on a complex and rocky shoreline, like the shoreline of Pacific Grove. These total water level calculations were then calibrated with FEMA’s BFEs using a calibration coefficient to closely fit the FEMA data4 .
4 K value with the closest fit was found to be 0.73
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-8
For the coastal wave hazard modeling, total water levels were determined at 14 separate transects used in the XBeach model. Total water levels for this model used the highest astronomical tide from the Monterey tide station (7.21 ft NAVD88).

2.3 EROSION PROJECTION METHODS
Coastal erosion projections assume that sea level rise will elevate wave energy, intensifying its impact on cliffs, cliffs, and dunes, and ultimately leading to accelerated cliff-top retreat rates.

Peer-reviewed models, described in more detail below, rely on assumptions linking cliff retreat to sea level rise, wave energy, historical cliff behavior, and cross-shore profile geometry. The CoSMoS cliff forecasting tool relies on five different models from Limber et al. (2018). However, not all models within the CoSMoS cliff forecasting tool were appropriate for this hard rock geology shoreline. This study used three models to match the hard rock geologic conditions of Pacific Grove. Results from all three are presented as an ensemble. The erosion model projects erosion distances at 1-year time steps. Erosion distances are mapped in approximately 20- year periods from 2020–2040, 2040–2060, and 2060–2080, and 2080–2100. The following models were included in the erosion project ensemble.

2.3.1 Trenhaile Model
This model presumes that the distance between the wave breaking and the cliff toe (surf zone length over which wave energy dissipation will occur) will drive cliff retreat and is described in Trenhaile (2000) and Limber et al. (2018). A shorter surf zone will increase the wave energy available to reach the backshore, and sea level rise will reduce surf zone length and lead to an acceleration of erosion into the future. Cliff erosion will in turn lengthen the surf zone. Thus, erosion and sea level rise attempt to balance each other, and as sea level rise accelerates, erosion does as well. Three erosion hazard zones representing a range of estimates of future erosion hazards were developed.

This model includes the following parameters:
• Breaking wave height
• Surf zone roughness
• Surf zone width (a function of slope, total water level, and wave height).

2.3.2 Energy Flux Model
This model presumes that the distance between wave breaking and the cliff toe (surf zone length) will drive cliff retreat and is described in Limber et al. (2018). It is very similar to the Trenhaile model but assumes that erosion depends on wave energy flux, which includes wave height squared, making this model more sensitive to changes in wave height. Like the model PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-9
above, three hazard zones representing a range of estimates of future erosion were developed.

This model includes the following parameters:
• Breaking wave height squared
• Wave group velocity
• Surf zone roughness
• Surf zone width (a function of slope, total water level, and wave height).

2.3.3 Hackney Model
This model presumes that all wave energy that reaches the coast contributes to coastal erosion and is described in Hackney (2013, 2015) and Limber et al. (2018). Unlike the Trenhaile and Energy flux models, it does not include surf zone roughness, and in a rocky and complex shoreline like Pacific Grove, it results in higher erosion rates, especially in the nearterm horizon. Like the models above, hazard zones representing a range of estimates of future erosion were developed. This model includes the following parameters:
• Significant wave height
• Sea level.

2.4 WAVE RUNUP METHODS
A process-based numerical model, XBeach, was used to quantify the elevation and inland extents of large storm wave runup. XBeach simulates wave transformation as storm waves approach coastlines, and in this application, XBeach was used on a 1-dimensional basis such that waves propagate towards the shore along transects (as opposed to a grid). Fourteen transects along the coast of Pacific Grove were selected for use in the wave runup analysis. The non-hydrostatic mode of XBeach was utilized, allowing for the computation of runup caused by wind-driven waves regardless of varying tide elevations. Offshore water levels were determined using the highest astronomical tide. Offshore wave conditions that correspond to a 100-year storm wave event were taken from a separate wave (SWAN) model that Integral developed as part of the Hopkins Marine Science Center analysis. Sea level elevations representing current conditions (0), 1, 2, 3, and 4 ft of sea level rise were run, resulting in a total of 70 simulations. Simulations were run over 60 minutes around a high tide window, and results were analyzed to determine R2%, which is the height above which only 2% of waves reach on a coastline and is a commonly used metric in coastal engineering. Maximum wave runup elevations were also calculated and informed the potential flooding of low-lying areas within the Pacific Grove Golf Links. These results were calibrated with FEMA BFEs and verified with wave runup values using the Dodet et al. (2018) method. Agreement between XBeach results and FEMA BFEs is shown in Figure 5. XBeach generally overpredicted FEMA BFE by several (<3) feet, though on some transects, such as near Point Cabrillo and Point Pinos, FEMA PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-10
overpredicted XBeach. Given the physics-based detailed modeling using XBeach, it is anticipated that more accurate storm wave run up would differ from the empirical calculations of total water level elevations calculated by FEMA.

Figure 5. Agreement between R2% determined from the XBeach simulations and FEMA BFE levels.

The elevation of the R2% wave was transposed onto the topography of each transect to determine the horizontal extent of the wave hazard. Contour elevations representative of these elevations were then derived from the 2022/2023 LiDAR survey and seamed together between transects. Results were then verified with the wave runup and overtopping study conducted by Moffatt & Nichol as part of the Shoreline Master Plan, the site-specific work at Hopkins Marine Station by Integral and HKA, and with FEMA’s mapped velocity (VE) hazard zone.

2.5 TIDAL INUNDATION METHODS
To quantify the impact of tidal inundation on flood risk, a bathtub approach was utilized. Sea level was mapped at the highest annual king tide (or HAT) at the Monterey Tide Gage. With 4 ft of sea level rise, the current HAT of 7.21 ft was mapped at 11.21 ft NAVD88. This analysis assumed that the future wave climate is comparable to the historical wave climate and that total water level changes are based primarily on influences from sea level rise. Modeling of total water levels assumes that the current backshore location and height of armoring remain consistent throughout the future and that no additional adaptation strategies are implemented. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
XBeach R2% (ft)
FEMA (ft)
FEMA-XBeach Agreement Perfect Agreement
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-11

2.6 COASTAL HAZARD MODEL CAVEATS
These results represent the state of the science and practice in coastal cliff erosion projections at a local scale However, the coastal erosion model projections are applied using a range of measured historic erosion rates and show a zone of potential erosion. It is highly unlikely that erosion of this entire area would occur simultaneously, but rather that multiple failures would occur along the coast in different locations over time. The cliff erosion models used in this study do not account for the evolution of nearshore slopes over time, including the beach and shore platform, or the contact depth between the dunes or marine terrace deposits and the bedrock. The efficacy of coastal armoring over time, which reduces erosion could substantially change when or if failure or removal of these coastal armoring structures will occur, is also not considered.

Furthermore, the ensemble of cliff erosion models used in this study are not process-based models, but rather 1-dimensional numerical models that relate offshore wave and water level conditions to accelerate historical erosion to project future erosion extents. These cliff erosion models do not consider terrestrial factors such as rainfall, stormwater runoff, or bioturbation from burrowing animals. While using an ensemble approach helps produce more defensible and probabilistic erosion estimates, the amount of future erosion predicted is highly dependent on variations in initial parameter values, particularly historical erosion rates. This study attempted to increase the certainty of historical rates by incorporating calculations from numerous studies; however, uncertainty still exists because of the varying nature of the input data set and calculation methods.

Similarly, the wave runup model used in this study also has associated uncertainty. In contrast to the erosion model, XBeach is a process-based model, meaning it captured the physics involved in coastal waves. However, it still has several limitations. Primarily, wave runup simulations with future sea level rise do not account for changes in elevation driven by coastal erosion. The erosion and wave models are not coupled to each other in this analysis, because there are no models available for use that can capture long-term erosion and wave runup in a computationally efficient way. As such, the wave hazards are calculated separately from the erosion hazards. Additionally, limited data were available to calibrate model output. FEMA BFE elevations were utilized for calibration but those elevations also have their own inherent uncertainty.

In summation, both the modeling processes, as well changes that may arise in the future ranging from potential changes in precipitation, temperature, wave climate, groundwater, frequency and magnitude of precipitating storm events, and anthropogenic contributions and responses to erosion contribute to uncertainty. For this reason, caution should be used with all projections. Given these caveats, however, all efforts have been made to utilize the best available science and methods and carefully document uncertainties.

This study has applied multiple historic erosion data sets and three different models to identify a range of possible erosion extents. All of the output data has been provided to the City for PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 2-12
future use. The projected erosion distances using the minimum historic erosion rates can be considered erosion hazard projections with a higher level of confidence to occur. The projected erosion distances using the maximum historic erosion rates show a lower confidence and more extreme projection that is more likely appropriate for the coastal hazard overlay. All of the model projections though would be useful for evaluating site specific projects as part of the CDP process.

2.7 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODS
The vulnerability assessment analyzed the spatial intersection (or overlay) of the coastal erosion and wave runup hazard zones with the land use parcels and structures data sets. The study team overlaid all available parcels and structures to quantitatively assess both the number of structures and the area of parcels exposed. Data sets were queried, and summary statistics of assets were developed by sea level rise elevation. Results were collated into tables and are interpreted in the section below. The parcels data set was sourced from the County of Monterey in 2024, and the structures data set was sourced from Open Street Map (OSM) in 2023 and verified with a building footprint layer sourced from the City.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-1
3 TASK 2 COASTAL HAZARD MODELING RESULTS

3.1 TASK 2.1 COASTAL EROSION HAZARDS RESULTS
This section provides an overview and map of the erosion hazard zones extents. A time series of maximum, mean, and minimum erosion distances for the three erosion models used in this study is shown for all 105 transects, spanning from 2020 to 2100 (Figure 6), given a projection of erosion hazards throughout the city over the rest of the century. Estimated maximum, mean, and minimum erosion distances are shown separately for each transect for the years 2040, 2060, 2080, and 2100 (Figure 7 through Figure 10). These figures highlight the areas of the City’s coastline that are particularly vulnerable to erosion and give a range of likely erosion distances for each segment of the City’s shoreline. Finally, a map is presented, spatially depicting the maximum erosion hazard zones to 2100 as well as the mapped factor of safety line representing areas that may be exposed to erosion in the near term (next 30 years) for the entire coastline of the City (Figure 11). To clarify, the extent of the hazard zone represents the projected time-averaged position of the cliff-top edge in the future.

Figure 6. City-wide erosion, modeled to 2100. The three columns represent results from the three different erosion models that were utilized, and the three rows represent maximum, mean, and minimum modeled erosion.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-2
Figure 7. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 0.4 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2040. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-3
Figure 8. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 1.2 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2060. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-4
Figure 9. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 2.7 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2080. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-5
Figure 10. Modeled cliff erosion along the Pacific Grove coastline with 4.4 ft of sea level rise, estimated to occur by 2100. Red bars represent results from the Trenhaile erosion model, green bars represent results from the Energy Flux erosion model, and blue bars represent results from the Hackney model. The three color shares represent minimum or best-case erosion, mean erosion, and maximum or worst-case erosion.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-6
Figure 11. Coastal erosion hazard zones with sea level rise.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-7

3.2 COASTAL EROSION EVENT AT THE GREAT TIDE POOL AND THE ASILOMAR DUNES STATE BEACH IN THE WINTER OF 2022/23
Integral performed a LiDAR survey at king low tides in December of 2022 and January 2023 which occurred before and after a large (~50-year) coastal storm wave event on January 5th 2023. Within the region, offshore wave heights reached 28 feet along the region, and considerable coastal wave flooding and erosion were reported along the Monterey Peninsula, including in Pacific Grove. The timing and spatial overlap of the surveys provided a unique insight into a severe erosion event and the potential storminduced erosion extents regardless of sea level rise.

One location where erosion was most severe was at the Great Tide Pool along a section of the Asilomar Coastal Trail. Erosion was most severe within a 600 square-foot area, where the dune eroded back up to 50 feet and up to 5.5 feet of depth was lost (Figure 12 and Figure 13). The wooden lookout platform and boardwalk were destroyed, and rocks and debris from the foreshore were moved by waves and thrown over 100 feet and scattered around the dune field and trail.

Figure 12. Left: Portions of the damaged Asilomar Coastal Trail boardwalk that had been moved by wave action. Right: Erosion of the trail and dune near the Great Tide Pool, January 2023. Photo Source: City of Pacific Grove, 2023.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-8
Figure 13. Documentation of an erosion event on January 5, 2023, at the Great Tide Pool area near Ocean View Blvd and Lighthouse Ave. Aerial image is pre-storm - December 2022.

One other notable location that historically has experienced significant erosion, and notably during the January 5th storm event, is at the Asilomar Gazebo located along the Asilomar Coastal Trail near Jewell Avenue and Sunset Drive. As seen in Figure 14 below, between 2015 and 2024 the coastal terrace fronting the gazebo has experienced significant erosion. The gazebo is projected to be vulnerable to coastal erosion in the near term and is located within the coastal erosion factor of safety line. See Section 4 for more details on potentially vulnerable locations to coastal hazards.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-9

Figure 14. Documentation of erosion at the Asilomar Gazebo. Left: November 2015. Center:

Erosion at the toe of the terrace is evident – January 2023. Right: Significant erosion of the terrace is evident with the failure of the wooden retaining wall and the steepening of the terrace face – February 2024.

3.3 TASK 2.2 COASTAL WAVE HAZARDS AND TIDAL INUNDATION
This section provides an overview of the detailed results and map of the coastal storm wave flooding hazard zone extents. First, an example is shown depicting the R2% wave runup values with 5 different sea level scenarios for one of the city transects where XBeach simulations were run (Figure 15). These results, available at all 14 transects, were subsequently used to develop coastal storm wave flooding hazard zones on the coast for existing conditions and four sea level rise horizons (1, 2, 3, and 4 ft). These wave flooding hazard zones with sea level rise are depicted in Figure 16.

Figure 15. An example of XBeach results on a transect near Clyte St in Pacific Grove, showing the R2% wave locations on the transect bathymetry with five different sea level rise scenarios.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-10
Maximum runup and R2% heights are reported for all fourteen transects and all five sea level scenarios in Table 5
.

Table 4 Maximum and 98th percentile (R2%) runup heights across all 14 transects with all five sea level rise scenarios. Heights are relative to the NAVD88.

Runup heights with SLR
0 ft SLR 1 ft SLR 2 ft SLR 3 ft SLR 4 ft SLR
Transect Max R2% Max R2% Max R2% Max R2% Max R2%
Pico Ave 23.9 22.3 25.6 23.0 27.2 23.9 29.2 27.6 29.2 27.6 North of Arena Ave 26.6 24.9 28.5 25.3 28.5 26.6 30.5 29.2 30.5 29.2 Great Tide Pool 24.3 22.6 25.9 23.3 26.6 25.3 27.6 26.9 27.9 27.2 South of Foghorn Turnout 24.6 23.6 25.9 23.9 26.2 24.6 26.2 24.6 26.2 25.3 Point Pinos 25.9 23.9 26.2 25.3 26.6 26.2 27.2 26.6 28.2 27.2 Crespi Pond 17.4 17.1 17.4 17.1 17.7 17.1 17.7 17.1 18.0 17.1 Coral St 20.7 19.7 21.6 21.3 22.6 21.6 23.3 22.3 24.3 23.3 Beach St 21.3 19.7 21.6 21.0 22.6 21.0 23.6 22.6 24.9 23.6 Siren St 22.6 17.4 23.9 19.0 25.9 21.6 26.6 22.0 29.5 23.3 Clyte St 24.6 21.0 25.3 22.6 27.6 25.3 28.5 25.6 30.8 28.2 Lovers Point 25.9 24.9 26.9 24.9 29.2 27.2 29.2 27.2 29.2 27.9 Grand Ave 25.3 20.3 28.9 21.6 28.9 22.3 29.2 24.6 31.8 25.3 15th St 29.8 22.6 29.8 23.3 30.2 24.6 32.5 26.9 32.5 28.2 5th St 21.3 18.4 22.3 19.4 25.3 21.3 25.6 23.6 25.9 24.9 5 R2% heights for the Hopkins Marine Station were sourced form a site-specific study by Integral and HKA from 2021.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-11
Figure 16. Coastal wave hazards from a 1% annual chance storm, rising tides, and the low-lying flood-prone area hazard zones with sea level rise.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 3-12

3.4 TASK 2.3 TIDAL INUNDATION FINDINGS
Results from this analysis show that tidal inundation with 4 feet of sea level rise is not a significant threat to any developed land areas within the City. Tidal inundation may narrow beach widths and shift the rocky intertidal habitat areas to higher elevations, but no parcels or structures are at risk due to rising tides.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 4-1
4 TASK 3 REVISED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section provides an overview of vulnerabilities to coastal hazards and sea level rise for parcels and structures. The focus of this assessment is on the direct exposure of property and structures, and this assessment does not evaluate direct exposure to public infrastructure or other potential cascading impacts associated with climate change. The following tables enumerate the structures and parcels impacted by coastal erosion and coastal wave flooding through the end of the century. Overall, coastal waves cause greater hazard exposure than coastal erosion.

For coastal erosion, only the State Parks Gazebo, which is located near Jewell Avenue, is located within the coastal erosion factor of safety (meaning it is currently vulnerable to erosion). However, three other structures are located in proximity to the erosion hazard area, including two single-family residences on the ocean side of Sunset Drive in the Asilomar Dunes neighborhood, and one institutional building at the Hopkins Marine Station that is currently protected by coastal armoring. A total of 7.75 acres of parcels are predicted to be impacted by coastal erosion (Table 5).

Table 5 Cumulative acres of parcel exposed to erosion by year (sea level rise range in ft).

2020–2040
(0–0.5 ft)
2040–2060
(0.5–1.2 ft)
2060–2080
(1.2–2.7 ft)
2080–2100
(2.7–4.4 ft)
Residential Land 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.15
Institutional Land 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.24
Parkland and Open Space 1.15 2.57 4.39 7.37
Grand Total 1.21 2.70 4.62 7.75
For coastal wave hazards, by 2100, a total of 28 structures and 81 acres of parcels are predicted to be impacted by coastal wave hazards from a 100-year storm wave event (Table 6 and Table 7). The majority of acres impacted are parkland and open space. In the near term, between 0 and 1 ft of sea level rise (2020 to 2050–2065), the most exposed areas to coastal wave hazards occur at six distinct locations:

1. At the southern part of the City near the Asilomar Conference Grounds, where coastal wave hazards may extend across Sunset Drive and into the conference grounds dunes

2. Around the pocket beach between the Great Tide Pool and the Foghorn Turnaround, where coastal wave hazards expose Ocean View Boulevard and the Pacific Grove Golf Links

3. At Crespi Pond, where wave splash and large thrown debris affect the trail and road, and low-lying areas of the Pacific Grove Golf Links will experience ponded flooding. The public restroom near Crespi Pond is within the coastal wave hazard factor of safety line and may be vulnerable to flooding
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 4-2

4. At the residential area between Coral Street and Esplanade Street, where Ocean View Boulevard and the first line of oceanfront homes are exposed

5. At the area between Esplanade Street and Otter Point, where Ocean View Boulevard and the parking lot at Otter Point are exposed

6. At the Hopkins Marine Station, with wave exposure at West Beach, Agassiz Beach and Agassiz Building, and around the Historic Boatworks and Marine Biology Library.

In the mid-term, between 1 and 2 ft of sea level rise (2050–2090), exposure at the locations listed above increases, with escalated exposure to the parking lots and turnarounds including at the Crespi, Asilomar, Acropolis, and Foghorn turnarounds. The lower-lying areas located along the central and eastern sides of the Hopkins Marine Station also see increased exposure.

In the long term, between 2 and 4 ft of sea level rise (2065–2100+), exposure at the locations listed above escalates, with increased exposure to the residential parcels in the Asilomar Dunes Neighborhood located between Arena Avenue and Jewell Avenue. Coastal wave hazards approach many of the homes here and may impact access.

Table 6 Number of structures exposed to coastal wave hazards by sea level rise horizon in feet (ranges of years projected).
0 (2020)
0–1
(2020–
2065)
1–2
(2050–
2090)
2–3
(2065–
2100+)
3–4
(2075-
2100+)
Grand
Total
Parks Gazebo 1 1
Single Family Homes 10 2 2 3 17
Institutional Buildings 4 2 3 1 10
Grand Total 4 12 5 4 3 28
Table 7 Cumulative acres of parcel exposed to coastal wave hazards by sea level rise horizon in feet (ranges of year projected).

0 (2020)
0–1
(2020-
2065)
1–2
(2050-
2090)
2–3
(2065-
2100+)
3–4
(2075-
2100+)
Vacant Land 0.08 0.33
Residential Land 0.33 1.33 1.82 2.28 3.03
Parkland and Open Space 48.83 52.66 59.55 66.92 70.38
Institutional Land 2.09 4.82 6.93 7.26 7.50
Grand Total 51.26 58.81 68.29 76.54 81.24
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 4-3

COASTAL HAZARDS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW BY 2100
Future sea level rise will lead to an acceleration in cliff top erosion throughout the City, as well as an increased risk of wave runup hazards and associated flooding. The following long-term vulnerabilities are projected:

Coastal Erosion Hazards
– By 2100, with ~4 ft of sea level rise, the following coastal erosion hazards are projected:

1. Erosion is projected to be highest at the Great Tide Pool and Crespi Pond, with projected erosion distances of 85 and 54 ft, respectively. These coastal erosion hazards are projected to impact Oceanview Blvd around Point Pinos and the Pacific Grove Golf Links.

2. Typical erosion distances along the open coast of the Asilomar Dunes neighborhood may reach 28 ft and exposes Sunset Drive at the intersection of Arena Avenue. One State Parks gazebo is exposed to erosion. Two residential structures located on the ocean side of Sunset Drive are proximal to the erosion hazard zone.

3. Typical erosion distances along the coast of the Beach Tract / Fairway Homes Neighborhood vary significantly but are highest between Crespi Pond and Coral Street where erosion can be as much as 54 ft. Erosion between Coral Street and Lovers Point is as high as 22 ft, with some sheltered coastal segments projected to have very little erosion, assuming no change in the current coastal protection structures. No structures are projected to be exposed to erosion in this area.

4. Erosion along the coast of the Pacific Grove Retreat Neighborhood is significantly less than other areas of the City’s coastline, with typical erosion values of less than 10 ft. No structures are exposed to erosion in this area; however, one structure located behind coastal armoring at the Hopkins Marine Station, could be exposed to erosion if the armoring were to fail.

Wave Runup Hazards
– By 2100, with ~4 ft of sea level rise, the following wave runup hazards are projected:

1. Wave runup hazards are projected to be highest between the Great Tide Pool and Point Pinos and are projected to extend inland as much as 300 ft. These coastal wave hazards are projected to impact the Point Pinos Park area and Pacific Grove Golf Links. The low-lying area around Crespi Pond is also exposed to coastal wave hazards currently and may experience large wave-thrown PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 4-4
debris and splash along Ocean View Boulevard. Flooding of the low-lying area behind the road is expected to escalate with sea level rise and the public restroom near Crespi Pond is potentially vulnerable to flooding. The extent of hazards for low-lying flood-prone areas within the Pacific Grove Links is identified in Figure 16.

2. Wave runup extents along the open coast of the Asilomar Dunes neighborhood vary but may be as high as 280 ft. The residential parcels most exposed to wave flooding are between Arena Avenue and Jewell Avenue, with exposure to wave hazards projected to occur by 3 ft of sea level rise.

3. Wave runup extents along the Beach Tract / Fairway Homes Neighborhood are highest between Crespi Pond and Otter Point (near Beach Street), with the most exposed residential block between Coral Street and Esplanade Street. A total of 16 homes and 25 parcels are exposed in this neighborhood. Exposure to the properties and homes is projected to occur between 1 and 2 ft of sea level rise.

4. Wave runup extents along the Pacific Grove Retreat Neighborhood are minimal with the exception of the Hopkins Marine Station. Here, nine institutional buildings are exposed to coastal wave hazards.

Tidal Inundation

1. By 2100, and with sea level rise of up to 4 ft, no structures were projected to be exposed to daily or even king (annual) high tide inundation.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 5-1
5 NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Update the LCP Land Use Plan policies to incorporate the revised hazard modeling findings from this study into a coastal hazard overlay and make minor changes to the policy language as necessary.

2. Incorporate new hazard layers into a refined vulnerability assessment to map the potential vulnerabilities to the City’s roadways, recreational assets, public infrastructure, and critical facilities.

3. Integrate the new hazard layers and vulnerability assessment findings into relevant City planning documents including:
a. General Plan
b. Capital Improvement Plans
c. Shoreline Master Plan
d. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
e. Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 6-1
6 REFERENCES
EMC. 2015. Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program Update, Final Background Report, EMC Planning Group Inc. Prepared for the City of Pacific Grove. EMC. January 12.

Dodet, G., F. Leckler, D. Sous, F. Ardhuin, J.F. Filipot and S. Suanez. 2018. Wave runup over steep rocky cliffs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 123. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC013967.

Dudek. 2018. Geologic and Hydrologic Conditions Report to Support Coastal Erosion and Bluff Recession. October 26.

Gon, C. J., MacMahan, J. H., Thornton, E. B., & Denny, M. 2020. Wave dissipation by bottom friction on the inner shelf of a rocky shore. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 125, e2019JC015963. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015963
Hackney, C., S.E. Darby, and J. Leyland. 2013. Modeling the response of soft cliffs to climate change: A statistical, process-response model using accumulated excess energy.

Geomorphology 187: 108–121.

Hackney, C., S.E. Darby, and J. Leyland. 2015. Landscapes on the edge: examining the role of climatic interactions in shaping coastal watersheds using a coastal-terrestrial landscape evolution model. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 40(3) 313-325.

Hegermiller, C.A., A. Rueda, L.H. Erikson, P.L. Barnard, J.A.A. Antolinez, and F.J. Mendez. 2017.

Controls of multimodal wave conditions in a complex coastal setting. Geophysical Research Letters 44:(24). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075272
Limber, P.W., P.L. Barnard, S. Vitousek, L.H. Erikson. 2018. A model ensemble for projecting multidecadal coastal cliff retreat during the 21st century. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Earth Surface 2018. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004401 Moffat & Nichol. 2018. Pacific Grove Shoreline Management Plan Vulnerability Assessment.

Moffat & Nichol. June.

OEHHA. 2022. Indicators of Climate Change in California. The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

OPC and OST. 2024. DRAFT: State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update. California Ocean Protection Council and California Ocean Science Trust.

January.

Pacific Grove. 2017. Point Pinos Coastal Trail Study & Plan, 2017. City of Pacific Grove. June 26, 2017.

PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024 6-2
Pacific Grove. 2020. City of Pacific Grove Shoreline Management Plan, 2020. City of Pacific Grove.

Riley, S.J., S.D DeGloria, and R. Elliott. 1999. A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 5.

Russell, N.L., and G.B. Griggs. 2013. California sea-level rise vulnerability and adaptation guidance document: A summary report. Shore and Beach 81(1): 1-7.

Storlazzi, C.D., and G.B. Griggs. 1998. Influence of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Events on the Coastline of Central California. Journal of Coastal Research, SI(26): 146-153.

Storlazzi, C.D., and D.K. Wingfield. 2005. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Oceanographic and Meteorologic Forcing along the Central California Coast, 1980–2002. Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5085. U.S. Geological Survey.

Trenhaile, A.S. 2000. Modeling the development of wave-cut shore platforms. Marine Geology, Volume 166, Issues 1–4, 2000, Pages 163-178, ISSN 0025-3227, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(00)00013-X.

PGCC 11-6-24

RESOLUTION 24 - 004

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY

OF PACIFIC GROVE, PURSUANT TO PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 23.84, TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE TEXT, POLICIES, AND FIGURES OF THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP SECTIONS 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, AND 2.1.4) AND TEXT OF THE IMPLENTATION PLAN (PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 23.90 (SECTION 23.90.140(b))

RECITALS

1. Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of each city.

2. On October 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove ("City") adopted a city-wide General Plan ("General Plan") pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development law.

3. Section 30500 of the Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction.

4. On January 15, 2020, the City adopted the LCP, comprised of a Land Use Plan (“LUP”) and Implementation Plan (“IP”), pursuant to the California Coastal Act and consistent with Section 30512 of the Public Resources Code. This separate mandate replaces policy guidance for most policy topics found in the General Plan and is applied in the Coastal Zone. The primary policy topics of noise and housing (to include other minor specific policies) are not addressed under the LCP - Coastal Act mandate although they are still applicable in the Coastal Zone under the jurisdiction of the General Plan – Planning Zoning and Development law mandate.

5. On March 11, 2020, the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”) acknowledged certification of the City’s LCP.

6. Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code provides for amendments to adopted LCP’s.

7. Sections 23.84.020(b) and 23.84.070 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (“PGMC”) allow LCP Amendments to be initiated by the Planning Commission.

8. On October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove (“Planning Commission”) considered, at a public hearing, the initiation of an LCP amendment to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and

2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)). The proposed amended text, policies, and LUP figure are incorporated by reference herein.

9. In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 (Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs), an amendment to a Local Coastal Program is statutorily exempt. Per Section 15265, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the 







 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

California Coastal Act by any local government necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program. This section shifts the burden of CEQA compliance from the local agency to the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15251(f), the Coastal Commission is identified as a certified regulatory program which meets the requirements of Public Resources Code involving the preparation, approval, and certification of local coastal programs. As such, the Coastal Commission report that will be prepared for the LCP Amendment qualifies as a functional equivalent environmental review document with regard to CEQA. The analysis in the report (Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results) prepared for the LCP Amendment provides the Coastal Commission with the technical background information they require to analyze the proposed LCP Amendment. Therefore, the City is not required to take further CEQA action on the proposed LCP Amendment.

10. On October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider initiating amendments to the City’s LCP. On September 26, 2024, at least 10 days before the first public hearing date, notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Monterey County Weekly.

11. This amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

1. The Planning Commission determines that each of the Recitals set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Recitals as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. The Planning Commission hereby initiates an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1,

2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)).

3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Commissioners Fredrickson, Davison, Kubica, Murphy, Nodzenski, and Sawyer NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sweigert
ABSTAIN: None








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

APPROVED:
_______________________________
CLAUDIA SAWYER, Vice Chair
for DON MURPHY, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________
KAREN VAUGHN, Secretary








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

RESOLUTION 24 - 005

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, PURSUANT TO PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 23.84,

RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE TEXT, POLICIES, AND FIGURES OF THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP SECTIONS 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, AND 2.1.4) AND TEXT OF THE IMPLENTATION PLAN (PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 23.90 (SECTION 23.90.140(b))

RECITALS

1. Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of each city.

2. On October 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove ("City") adopted a city-wide General Plan ("General Plan") pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development law.

3. Section 30500 of the Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction.

4. On January 15, 2020, the City adopted the LCP, comprised of a Land Use Plan (“LUP”) and Implementation Plan (“IP”), pursuant to the California Coastal Act and consistent with Section 30512 of the Public Resources Code. This separate mandate replaces policy guidance for most policy topics found in the General Plan and is applied in the Coastal Zone. The primary policy topics of noise and housing (to include other minor specific policies) are not addressed under the LCP - Coastal Act mandate although they are still applicable in the Coastal Zone under the jurisdiction of the General Plan – Planning Zoning and Development law mandate.

5. On March 11, 2020, the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”) acknowledged certification of the City’s LCP.

6. Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code provides for amendments to adopted LCP’s.

7. On October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove (“Planning Commission”) considered, at a public hearing, the initiation of an LCP amendment to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and

2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)). The proposed amended text, policies, and LUP figure are attached and incorporated by reference herein.

8. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30000 et seq., and Title 23 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (“PGMC”), the City may amend the adopted LCP provided the City follows certain procedures, including that the Planning Commission hold a noticed public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment of the LCP, and that the City Council hold a public hearing to determine whether to adopt a resolution of intent to approve, and if affirmative, submit the proposed amendment to the Coastal Commission for certification. The Coastal Commission may certify the amendment or may suggest modifications, which, if adopted by the City, are 







 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

deemed certified upon confirmation of the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission.

9. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65350 et seq., the City may amend the adopted General Plan provided the City follows certain procedures, including that the Planning Commission hold a noticed public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment of the General Plan. In this case, staff recommended that the proposed LCP amendment is consistent with the General Plan, that no changes will occur to General Plan, and that all changes are otherwise consistent with the General Plan.

10. All policies of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan have been reviewed by the Community Development Department staff to ensure that the proposed amendments maintain the compatibility and internal consistency of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan.

11. Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.84.060, Findings, and

23.84.070 Amendments to the Local Coastal Program, in recommending the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendments, the Planning Commission makes the applicable findings as described below.

12. In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 (Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs), an amendment to a Local Coastal Program is statutorily exempt. Per Section 15265, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal Act by any local government necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program. This section shifts the burden of CEQA compliance from the local agency to the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21080.5 and 21080.9, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15251(f), the Coastal Commission is identified as a certified regulatory program which meets the requirements of Public Resources Code involving the preparation, approval, and certification of local coastal programs. As such, the Coastal Commission report that will be prepared for the LCP Amendment qualifies as a functional equivalent environmental review document with regard to CEQA. The analysis in the report (Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results) prepared for the LCP Amendment provides the Coastal Commission with the technical background information they require to analyze the proposed LCP Amendment. Therefore, the City is not required to take further CEQA action on the proposed LCP Amendment.

13. On October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider initiating amendments to the City’s LCP. On September 26, 2024, at least 10 days before the first public hearing date, notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Monterey County Weekly.

14. This amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519). 







 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

FINDINGS
General Plan or Local Coastal Program Amendments

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the general plan;

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and

3. The site is physically suitable (including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested and anticipated land uses.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and, if applicable, the certified local coastal program; and

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of these regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

1. The Planning Commission determines that each of the Recitals and Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Recitals and Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of intent to amend the City’s Local Coastal Program, including the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)), attached and incorporated by reference herein.

3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Commissioners Fredrickson, Davison, Kubica, Murphy, Nodzenski, and Sawyer NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sweigert
ABSTAIN: None








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

APPROVED:
_______________________________
CLAUDIA SAWYER, Vice Chair
for DON MURPHY, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________
KAREN VAUGHN, Secretary








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

City of Pacific Grove
Draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment
Coastal Hazards Technical Refinements
Land Use Plan (LUP):

1.10 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE LAND USE PLAN
Critical Public Infrastructure: Processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets, and services essential to the health, safety, security, or economic well-being of the City. Examples include, yet are not limited to, the following: potable water treatment facilities and distribution networks, wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater collection (i.e., sewer main lines) networks, stormwater infrastructure, public roads, other public utilities (e.g., gas, electrical, and internet/telephone), and public sidewalks/trails associated with public roads. Examples of non-critical public infrastructure would include, yet are not limited to, the following: public sidewalks/trails not associated with public roads and public parks.

2.1 COASTAL HAZARDS (HAZ)

2.1.1 Background – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise
Large winter waves and bluff erosion have long been hazardous to the built environment, as well as to natural systems and resource management in the Coastal Zone. Now, added to those historical challenges are changes brought by global climate change and the effects of sea level rise. Global climate change is amplifying other threats to ocean and coastal ecosystems, including erosion, pollution, and habitat loss.

This Land Use Plan contains policies to respond to and address these hazards in the City’s planning and permitting process.

Among the most significant natural hazards along the Pacific Grove coastline are large winter storms and waves, and ongoing bluff and shoreline erosion. Impacts associated with storms, waves and erosion have fallen disproportionately on the built environment and natural systems at the ocean-land interface. In addition, the Hopkins Marine Station has long been listed as being particularly vulnerable to tsunamis.

The City’s 2015 Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis outlines many of these challenges but indicates that tsunamis have a relatively lower potential for damage to life and property due to the configuration of Monterey Bay and orientation of the Pacific Grove Coastline.

The geologic foundation of the entire Monterey Peninsula is a granitic rock called granodiorite overlain by marine terrace deposits. The marine terrace deposits are typically between 2 and 12 feet thick and capped by topsoil. The marine terrace deposits general consist of uncemented, friable, thinly laminate to thickly bedded silty very fine to coarse grained sand with pebbles and cobbles. The upper six inches to four feet of the marine terrace deposits are dark brown and clay rich due to topsoil. The base is generally marked in spots by a cobble and pebble rich deposit where the terrace deposits rest on top of the wave-cut platform. The contact between the granodiorite rock and marine terrace deposits typically has a seaward gradient. The terrace deposits exposed in the upper bluff are extremely erodible and unstable. When ocean wave run up impacts the terrace deposits, they erode, particularly near the base. That process undermines the terrace deposits and the upper terrace deposits slump downward onto the bedrock platform. 







 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

The granodiorite rock is sturdy in earthquakes, resists waves, and generally breaks up into sand and gravel rather than mud so the water is clear. The upper portion of the granite is highly weathered and portions are prone to erosion. At depth the granite is less weathered and is very erosion resistant. Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone also includes areas of sand dune on the Asilomar coast, and marine terrace deposits along both the bay and ocean shores. There are rock bluffs consisting of bedrock that is slowly eroding and decomposing, which separates the exposed rocky shore and beaches from the coastal terrace and dune landforms immediately inland. There are also rock outcrops and promontories, boulders, offshore sea stacks, and a string of islets off of point Pinos, all of which contribute to an extraordinarily scenic coastline. The granodiorite erodes very slowly, replenishing the sand supply which is not fed by the littoral drift that disperses into other beaches on the southern shore of Monterey Bay.

The Asilomar Dunes complex is a distinct geologic formation that extends from Point Pinos to Cypress Point in Pebble Beach. In Pacific Grove, the Asilomar Dunes encompass the area between Asilomar Avenue and the shoreline. The dune landforms are composed almost entirely of pure quartz sand, which accounts for the beautiful white sand beaches whose well-rounded frosted quartz grains indicate they were at one time in a dune field in the open air, away from the water.

The exposed granite rock mass at the Pacific Grove shoreline is generally erosion-resistant, except for localized erosion where wave action at faults can break the rock. This fracturing is minimal both on the City’s northeast shoreline along Monterey Bay, due to its orientation away from the predominantly northwest direction of the waves; and on the Asilomar coastline along the open ocean, due to the many off-shore reefs that dissipate the wave energy. The most rapid erosion along the shoreline has occurred in the natural coastal terrace deposits and midden, and various areas of rock and soil fill. A combination of ground squirrel and other animal activities; wave and tidal action; stormwater runoff and heavy pedestrian use has resulted in localized shoreline erosion sometimes affecting trails, bluffs, parking lots, and even the road. The City has historically sought to remedy this problem through a sea wall and rip rap revetment construction program and other shoreline armoring. As a result, the natural and scenic character of the Bay shoreline within the City has been altered to some extent by shoreline armoring that has been installed between Point Pinos and the Monterey Bay Aquarium at the City’s eastern boundary.

While bluff erosion along the Pacific Grove shoreline has generally been a localized problem, the winter storms of 1982-83 resulted in extensive damage. Rip rap revetments were washed out, storm drains were damaged, and parking areas were destroyed by the strong waves from these storms. Except for Hopkins Marine Station, a portion of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, two single family residences, and sewer pumping stations, the immediate shoreline area is used predominately for open space recreational purposes.

Damage from strong storm surges at Hopkins Marine Monterey Herald pictures of storm surges crashing Station. Photo Credit - Gary Griggs, Ph.D., over Ocean View Boulevard, Pacific Grove CA. Photo presentation: Sea-Level Rise, Shifting Shorelines and Credit- Monterey Herald, 2001.

El Niño 11/11/15








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

The natural coastal hazards and sea level rise policies in the Land Use Plan recognize the potential risks and hazards associated with development along Pacific Grove’s coast, including the probable impact of climate change and associated sea level rise. Land Use Plan policies both govern potential development in this area and address potential impacts. The best available science at the time of Coastal Development Permit review, including data and information recommended for use by the California Adaptation Planning Guide and the California Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance must be used to help determine sea levels and potential hazards until such time as new data and information is available. This data may include:
x Cal-Adapt interactive website designed to provide data and information produced by the State's scientific and research community that provides a view of how climate change might affect California at the local level;
x The Ocean Protection Council’s 2024 Science and Policy Update on Sea Level Guidance: State of California Sea Level Guidance;
x The National Research Council’s 2012 Report: Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future; and
x California Geologic Survey’s California Tsunami Hazard Area Maps for Monterey County; x Local data as available, which in the case of Pacific Grove currently includes the data set from the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Final Draft 2014 and the City of Pacific Grove Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, completed in January 2015; x National Data Buoy Center (Scripps Institution of Oceanography Station 46249 – Cabrillo Point, and NDBC Station 46042 – Monterey Bay); and
x Monterey Tide Gauge (NOAA Station 9413450).

All the above listed reports project that climate change will intensify a variety of coastal hazards, as a result of sea level rise.

A Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis Report, as well as a Background Report, both dated January 12, 2015 were prepared in support of the Local Coastal Program. Potential climate changes that may affect Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone include increases in temperature, shifts in precipitation, higher sea level, more severe storms, and ocean acidification. Although a secondary impact of climate change, Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone is also at increased risk of exposure to wildfire. Specific changes are difficult to predict, and considerable complexities arise when calculating potential risks.

The City’s Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis found that Pacific Grove’s development pattern, particularly the City’s coastal park and trail system, in conjunction with setting development back from the coast, well-position the City’s residential and commercial areas to help withstand effects of sea level rise and tsunami inundation. Additionally, the City’s location on granitic bluffs also limits erosion susceptibility. Nevertheless, the City may be susceptible to potential impacts, as all areas along California’s coast are subject to some level of inherent hazards risk. The climate change and vulnerability assessment modeling showed potential flooding along the City’s coastline, including the City’s coastal park system and developed residential areas. Additionally, modeling utilized in the City’s Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis showed erosion potential, again primarily along the City’s north shore, which, in the long run, would affect the City’s coastal parks and trails along with areas developed with residential, commercial and institutional uses. Figure 3, Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise, shows the areas of potential hazards related to projected sea level rise as identified in the Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis report prepared in 20152024.








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

The best available and most recent scientific information with respect to the effects of long-range sea level rise, including the coastal hazards analysis identified in the Background Report and Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis, must be considered in the preparation of findings and recommendations for all geologic, geotechnical, hydrologic, and engineering investigations. Furthermore, the City will continue to consider the findings of future scientific studies that increase and refine the body of knowledge regarding potential sea level rise and coastal hazards in Pacific Grove and along the Monterey Bay, and possible responses to it. Additionally, the City may utilize the variety of academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations in the region with expertise in climate change such as the University of California Santa Cruz, California State University Monterey Bay, Naval Postgraduate School, Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey, Stanford-Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford-Center for Ocean Solutions, the Nature Conservancy, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, to assist the City with data collection and research regarding the potential impacts of climate change and possible adaptation responses. Also, data from the Monterey Tide Gauge (NOAA Station 9413450) which was installed in 1973 can be utilized to report local sea levels and track sea level rise.

2.1.2 Coastal Act Policies – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise Various parts of the Coastal Act support policies in Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan that address climate change, sea level rise, and coastal hazards. Additionally, the California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance provides information for local municipalities updating Local Coastal Programs. The guidance document recognizes that the Coastal Act supports:

1. Use of best available science to guide decisions;

2. Minimization of coastal hazards through planning and development standards;

3. Maximization of protection of public access, recreation, public views and other coastal resources; and

4. Maximization of agency coordination and public participation.

Coastal Act policies relating to shoreline processes and natural hazards require that shoreline protection structures, such as seawalls, only be permitted where they serve coastal-dependent uses or protect existing structures or beaches in danger from erosion. The Coastal Act also requires that shoreline protection structures be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply (Public Resources Code §30235). Further, other coastal policies require that any development, such as shoreline protective devices, among other things, be sited and designed to:

1. Prevent degrading impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (Public Resources Code §30240);

2. Mitigate adverse impacts to archeological resources (Public Resources Code §30244);

3. Protect ocean views, minimize the alteration of natural land forms, and be visually compatible with and subordinate to the surrounding character of the area (Public Resources Code §30251); and

4. Provide, and not interfere with, maximum public recreational access to and along the shoreline (Public Resources Code §§30210, 30211 and 30212).

Finally, Coastal Act policies require that all new development minimize risks to life and property in hazard areas (Public Resources Code §30253(a)) and not create, nor contribute to, erosion, instability, destruction of a site, or require protective devices that substantially alter natural bluff and cliff forms (Public Resources Code §30253(b)).








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

Figure 3: Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise Coastal Hazards - Sea Level Rise with Potential Coastal Wave, Erosion, and Tsunami Hazards

2.1.3 General Plan and Other Policies – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise The Pacific Grove General Plan commits ocean front lands to open space and recreational uses. The combination of public ownership and existing City policies and ordinances severely limit physical structures on the immediate shoreline area. The effect of the policies and public ownership along the shoreline is to help reduce the risks to life and property from storm and tsunami hazards and bluff erosion.

However, certain policy areas, such as the effect of the construction of shoreline protective devices, among others, are not specifically covered by the Pacific Grove General Plan and are addressed in this Land Use Plan, the Implementation Plan, and the future Shoreline Management Plan. The Pacific Grove shoreline is an irreplaceable resource and its preservation as a natural living shoreline is a matter of great public importance. Therefore, the intent of the Local Coastal Program is to ensure that shoreline protective devices and other shoreline altering development are only utilized in limited situations and only when all coastal resource impacts are appropriately and proportionately mitigated, consistent with this Section.








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

2.1.4 Land Use Plan Policies – Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise The following Land Use Plan policies on shoreline hazards supplement existing City policies and regulations by providing for:

New development and redevelopment that is sited and designed to be safe from potential coastal hazards and in a manner that may not require future shoreline protective devices; Specific attention to the possible effects of shoreline protective device construction; Implementation of City policy calling for detailed park planning along the shoreline in order to maximize public access, find methods to minimize bluff erosion, and reduce other potential impacts on coastal resources; and
Expanded policies addressing protection from storm wave and tsunami hazards and the impacts associated with sea level rise while protecting coastal resources.

Tsunami Hazard Zone Sign. Photo Credit: www.NOAA.gov
HAZ-1. The City will continue to gather information on the effects of sea level rise and other coastal hazards on Pacific Grove’s shoreline, including identifying vulnerable areas, structures, facilities, and resources, specifically areas with priority uses such as public access and recreation resources, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and existing and planned sites for public infrastructure. Updates to the LCP, including through any vulnerability assessment, shall use the best available science, including the best available scientific estimates of expected sea level rise and potential resultant impacts. The information gathered should address multiple time frame horizons (e.g. 2025, 2050, and 2100) and sea level rise scenarios, as appropriate and feasible.

HAZ-2. Based on the information gathered over time per Policy HAZ-1, the City will conduct an evaluation at least every 10 years (and in response to significant storm events resulting in erosion) as to whether additional policies and other actions for inclusion in the LCP are necessary in order to better address the impacts of sea level rise and other coastal hazards, particularly those related to erosion.

As applicable, such periodic evaluations may result in LCP changes to hazard policies designed to:
a) require relocation of existing or planned development, including development already protected by shoreline protective devices, to safer locations or higher elevations and restoring shoreline areas to natural conditions if feasible, including working with entities that plan or operate infrastructure;








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

b) modify allowable land uses in hazardous areas, and modify siting and design standards for development, to avoid and minimize risks and better protect coastal resources; c) better protect wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; d) update standards for determining erosion rates;
e) ensure long term protection of the function and connectivity of existing public recreational access facilities and resources; and
f) require modifications to existing shoreline protective devices to ensure that such devices are meeting then-current standards and are functioning in a way that has the least impact on coastal resources as possible, including evaluation of possible removal and shoreline restoration.

HAZ-3. The City will monitor sea level rise and request changes to the Coastal Zone boundary, as appropriate and feasible. The City will minimize the need for construction of new shoreline protective devices through management and, where necessary, restoration of the coastal park lands, including control of pedestrian use, parking, and ground squirrel and other rodent, vermin, or animal activities.

HAZ-4. The City will maintain a warning system and procedures for protection of life and property in coastal areas that are subject to storm and tsunami hazard, including informing visitors to the shoreline of the potential danger of large waves, and will coordinate closely with the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services on the implementation and future amendment of the Monterey County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. New development subject to tsunami hazards shall prepare a tsunami preparedness plan that describes evacuation procedures and other protocols for addressing a potential tsunami event.

HAZ-5. The City will endeavor to coordinate planning and management of the coastal park lands with adjacent jurisdictions and other public agencies such as the City of Monterey, Monterey County, State Water Resources Control Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (Monterey Bay Sanctuary), Bureau of Land Management (California Coastal National Monument), the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the United States Coast Guard, and the California State Lands Commission, which has decision-making authority on policies that affect land below the mean high tide line.

The City should also coordinate planning and management of the coastal park lands on its downcoast borders with the Pebble Beach Company and other large private landowners, where feasible.

HAZ-6. The City will prepare a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), consistent with the parameters set forth in HAZ-2, to evaluate potential actions to guide the management of public parklands along the shoreline while considering the effects of sea level rise, best protecting coastal resources, as well as circulation and utility infrastructure. The SMP, when approved by the Coastal Commission, will function as a tool to help maximize public access and protect coastal resources along the City’s shoreline.

HAZ-7. The City will strive to minimize erosion of the shoreline by directing people to use public access pathways and stairways. The City will coordinate public recreation and access points with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that public access use is designed to mitigate adverse impacts to the California Coastal National Monument and its geological, biological, cultural, and visual resources.








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

HAZ-8. Development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. Development shall also assure stability and structural integrity, shall not create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site, and shall not substantially alter natural landforms. Public infrastructure, public recreational access facilities, and coastal-dependent development shall be developed in a manner consistent with Policy HAZ-10, and may qualify for shoreline protective devices only if in imminent danger from erosion consistent with HAZ-15 and HAZ-16. All other development shall be developed in a manner consistent with Policy HAZ-9.

HAZ-9. Development shall be sited and designed to avoid impacts from coastal hazards, including but not limited to, erosion, episodic and long-term shoreline retreat, flooding, inundation, storm waves, high seas, tidal scour, and tsunamis, including in relation to sea level rise, over the life of the development. As a condition of approval for all coastal development that at some point during its lifetime may be subject to coastal hazards, the Applicant shall record a deed restriction against the properties involved in the application acknowledging that the development site may be subject to coastal hazards.

HAZ-10. New public recreational access facilities (e.g. public parks, trails, and paths), public infrastructure (e.g. public roads, sidewalks, and public utilities), and coastal-dependent development (any development or use that requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function such as Hopkins Marine Station) shall be sited and designed in such a way as to limit potential impacts to coastal resources over their lifetime. See also Policy HAZ-15.

As appropriate, such development may be allowed within shoreline areas only if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. The development shall to the maximum extent feasible be sited and designed to be removable without significant damage to shoreline and/or bluff areas.

2. The development shall only be allowed when it will not cause, expand, or accelerate instability of a bluff.

HAZ-11. In order to minimize potential damage to life and property from coastal hazards, development and the use of land below the 20-foot elevation (as measured from mean high tide) shall be limited to coastal dependent and coastal related development, open space, low intensity public recreational access facilities and uses, public infrastructure, allowable shoreline armoring and coastal access facilities, and, at Lovers Point, Hopkins Marine Station, and Monterey Bay Aquarium, coastal dependent development. Other legally established existing development and uses below the 20-foot elevation may remain, but shall be relocated above the 20-foot elevation (or simply removed) should it become threatened by coastal hazards or should they redevelop.

Costs for relocation shall be borne by the property owner. Regardless, no new major critical public infrastructure (e.g., new water/wastewater treatment facilities) shall be allowed seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or Sunset Drive. To the maximum extent feasible, existing major critical public infrastructure shall be relocated outside of this area.

HAZ-12. Development proposed in potential hazard areas, including but not limited to those that are mapped as hazardous in Figure 3, shall be evaluated for potential coastal hazards at the site using intermediate-high scenario sea level rise projections, based on all readily available information and the most current and recently adopted best available science (e.g., State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance). If the initial evaluation determines that the proposed 







 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

development may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime, a site-specific hazards report prepared by a qualified geologist/engineer is required, the purpose of which is to ensure that such development can be built in a manner consistent with applicable LCP coastal hazards policies. Proposed development on properties that are determined not to be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime would not be subject to additional site-specific hazards analysis.

With respect to critical public infrastructure specifically, such development shall be evaluated for potential coastal hazards using high scenario sea level rise projections, based on readily available information and the most current and recently adopted available science (e.g., State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance). If the initial evaluation determines that the proposed critical public infrastructure development may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime, a site specific hazards report prepared by a qualified geologist/engineer is required, the purpose of which is to ensure that such development can be built in a manner consistent with applicable LCP coastal hazards policies and will be safe from extreme sea level rise projections either through its design or through the development of an adaptation plan to be implemented in the future.

HAZ-13. Repair and maintenance of existing legally established shoreline protective devices (including restacking dislodged rock rip-rap in revetments within the approved revetment profile and texturing/contouring a vertical seawall per the approved surface treatment, but not including replacement, augmentation, addition or expansion) shall only be allowed if the shoreline protective device is required to protect public infrastructure, public recreational access facilities, and coastal-dependent development in critical danger from erosion (i.e., when a sitespecific analysis determines the development would be unsafe to use or occupy within two years). If it is not so required, then the shoreline protective device shall be removed and the affected area restored. Any such allowable repair and maintenance projects shall include measures to address and mitigate for any coastal resource impacts the device is having, including with respect to public views and public recreational access.

HAZ-14. New shoreline protective device development (including replacement, augmentation, addition and expansion associated with an existing device) shall only be allowed where required to protect public recreational facilities (e.g., public parks trails, and paths), public infrastructure (e.g., public roads, sidewalks, and public utilities), and coastal dependent development (e.g., certain Hopkins Marine Station development) in imminent danger from erosion. Such devices shall only be utilized if no other feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative is available, such as relocation, beach nourishment, non-structural drainage and native landscape improvements, or other similar non-structural options. Such non-structural options shall be used and prioritized wherever possible to protect coastal resources, including coastal habitats, public recreational uses, and public access to the coast.

Where such non-structural options are not feasible in whole or in part, soft structural alternatives (e.g., sand bags, vegetation, etc.) shall be used and prioritized wherever possible before more significant shoreline protective devices (including, but not limited to, seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, groins, bluff retention devices, and piers/caisson foundation systems).

Shoreline protective devices shall not be constructed to protect non coastal-dependent development, other than public recreational facilities and public infrastructure that do not otherwise constitute coastal-dependent development, or where other measures can adequately mitigate erosion hazards. All construction associated with shoreline protective devices and repair or maintenance or augmentation of existing protection devices shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts to the California Coastal National Monument and its geological, biological, cultural and visual resources.








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

HAZ-15. New shoreline protective devices shall be sited and designed to avoid coastal resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible, including through eliminating or mitigating all adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply (including sand and beach area that are lost through the shoreline protective device’s physical encroachment on a beach, fixing of the back beach, and prevention of new beach formation in areas where the bluff/shoreline would have otherwise naturally eroded, and the loss of sand-generating bluff/shoreline materials that would have entered the sand supply system absent the device); protecting and enhancing public recreational access; protecting and enhancing public views; minimizing alteration of, and be visually subordinate to, the natural character of the shoreline; avoiding impacts to archeological resources; and protecting other coastal resources as much as possible.

Shoreline protective devices shall be required to mitigate impacts to shoreline sand supply, public access and recreation, and any other relevant coastal resource impacts in 20-year increments, starting with the building permit completion certification date. Permittees shall apply for a coastal permit amendment prior to expiration of each 20-year mitigation period, proposing mitigation for coastal resource impacts associated with retention of the shoreline protective device beyond the preceding 20-year mitigation period, and such application shall include consideration of alternative feasible mitigation measures in which the permittee can modify the shoreline protective device to lessen its impacts on coastal resources, including potential removal.

HAZ-16. When development is proposed, property owners with any structures that are associated with and/or protected by existing shoreline protective devices shall be required to provide an assessment of the continued efficacy of such devices, including an evaluation of whether the devices can be removed or modified (and affected areas restored to natural conditions) in light of the development proposed (e.g., if the development is being relocated inland) to better protect coastal resources, in terms of public recreational access resources, while still providing necessary coastal hazard protection. If the assessment indicates that they can be so removed or modified, including if the assessment indicates that there is greater coastal resource benefit to removal or modification of the shoreline protective device, then the removal or modification shall be required as a condition of any approval for the development. In all cases, shoreline protective devices shall only be authorized until the time when the qualifying development that is protected by such a device is no longer present and/or no longer requires armoring. 







 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

ORDINANCE NO. 24 - ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING THE TEXT OF SECTION 23.90.140 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE (PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM)

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Section 30500 of the Public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) adopted an LCP (City Council Resolution No. 20-001), comprised of a Land Use Plan (“LUP”) and Implementation Plan (“IP”), pursuant to the California Coastal Act and consistent with Section 30512 of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”) acknowledged certification of the City’s LCP; and
WHEREAS, the LCP is final, adopted and certified and took effect on the certification date of March 11, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City determined it appropriate to codify the IP as Chapter 23.90 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC); and
WHEREAS, Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code and the PGMC Chapter 23.84 provide for amendments to adopted LCP’s; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove (“Planning Commission”) considered, at a duly noticed public hearing, the initiation of an LCP amendment to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and

2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)), and the Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed LCP amendment; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (“City Council”) considered, at a duly noticed public hearing, the proposed LCP amendment to amend the text, policies, and figures of the LUP (LUP Sections 1.10, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.4) and text of the IP (PGMC Section 23.90.140(b)), and the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to adopt the proposed LCP amendment; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in the Monterey County Weekly and posted at City Hall on November 7, 2024; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.84.060, Findings, and 23.84.070, Amendments to the Local Coastal Program, in recommending the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendments, the Planning Commission made the following findings: the proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and, if applicable, the certified local coastal program; the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and the proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of these regulations; and








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265 (Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs), an amendment to a Local Coastal Program is statutorily exempt; and WHEREAS, this amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings pursuant to PGMC 23.84.060:
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and, if applicable, the certified local coastal program;
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and
3) The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of these regulations.

SECTION 3. The Pacific Grove Municipal Code is amended as follows:

Chapter 23.90
Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan
Section 23.90.140 Coastal Hazards
(a) In order to protect life, property, and coastal resources from coastal hazards, and to maintain consistency with the LCP’s land use plan (LUP), development shall conform to all applicable land use plan coastal hazards policies and the following requirements:
(b) Applications for All Development Potentially Subject to Coastal Hazards. (1) Initial Coastal Hazards Assessment. City staff The applicant shall conduct submit an initial site assessment screening to determine whether the site may be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime (generally over at least the next 75 years). The initial site assessment shall be based on readily available information and the most current and recently adopted available science (e.g., State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance). The screening shall include a review of CDPs issued or applied for at the subject site and immediate vicinity, technical reports, resource maps, aerial photographs, site inspection, current coastal hazard GIS layers, and the LCP’s coastal hazard map in LUP Figure 3. Maps can be used as a resource for identification of coastal hazard areas; however, absence of mapping cannot alone be considered absence of hazard, and local site conditions must be examined at the time of coastal permit application using the best available science.
(2) Coastal Hazards Report. Where the initial site assessment reveals that the proposed development is located on or seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or Sunset Drive, mapped within LUP Figure 3, and/or otherwise may be subject to coastal hazards over the next 75 years, a site-specific coastal hazards report (report) shall be prepared. The report shall at a minimum provide for:
….








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

SECTION 4. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement effect this Ordinance.

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 more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following passage and adoption hereof and following certification by the California Coastal Commission.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS ____ day of _______________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney








 
 




PGCC 11-6-24

1 RESOLUTION 22-018

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION’S LCP LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Budget Act of 2021 provides up to $31 million to support the Coastal Commission’s LCP Local Assistance Grant Program which awards grants to local governments to support coastal resiliency and updates to Local Coastal Programs (LCPs); and WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, under the authority of the California Coastal Act, may provide financial assistance to support coastal planning and has approved a grant program to provide such financial assistance for LCP planning; and WHEREAS, the goal of the grant program is to develop new or updated LCPs in conformance with the California Coastal Act and to promote coastal resiliency and address the effects of climate change; and
WHEREAS, grant proposals submitted under this grant program must complete Local Coastal Program (LCP) planning work with special emphasis on coastal resiliency and addressing the effects of climate change and sea-level rise; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove, has an effectively certified LCP; and WHEREAS, through the practical application of the standards of the Implementation Plan (IP) pertaining to Coastal Hazards, staff has discovered that the coastal hazards science that these measures were based on in the development of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) have become outdated and are onerous to individual property owners seeking to make improvements to properties along the coast; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove, desires to pursue the services of a professional geomorphologist or equivalent to update the background information and data needed to prepare an amendment to Section 23.90.140 (Coastal Hazards) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and Chapter 2.1 (Coastal Hazards) of the Land Use Plan (LUP), as needed, for approval by the City and submittal for certification by the California Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove commits to and agrees to fully support a planning effort intended to amend a certified LCP pursuant to the provisions of the California Coastal Act, with full public participation and coordination with the Coastal Commission staff; and WHEREAS, enactment of this Ordinance qualifies for a CEQA Statutory Exemption as provided by section 15265 of the CEQA Guidelines – Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs.

The City Council finds no evidence of unusual circumstances has been submitted within the context, or evidence the project will cause significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource as contemplated by CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9566468E-3F14-4D17-A33E-E01CE02224AC PGCC 11-6-24

2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove, hereby:

1. Directs the Community Development Department Director, or designee, to submit the grant application package attached hereto as Attachment 1 to the California Coastal Commission to provide financial and planning assistance, under authority of the California Coastal Act, in the amount of $100,000.00 to fund the project more particularly described in the grant application package.

2. Authorizes the City Manager of the City of Pacific Grove, to execute, in the name of the City of Pacific Grove, all necessary applications, contracts and agreements and amendments thereto to implement and carry out the grant application package attached hereto, and any project approved through approval of the grant application.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE on this 20th day of April, 2022 on the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: Mayor Peake and Mayor Pro Tem McAdams.

ABSENT: Councilmember Amelio.

APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:________________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9566468E-3F14-4D17-A33E-E01CE02224AC 4/25/2022
PGCC 11-6-24

 








!"



 #$
# %&
# '

()*+,-),.-/,-),0/,-),-1/2,3/134/56 7
8)9:;<;=:=>?@9=AB C
A-)),)D+55,EE,).F-)),)D/55,EE,)0/,*GF-/,G,/D1H341D6 +,*+)/,B35I31E./,*/)/,0/,*GF-/,G,/D1H341D6JK31LM-,30+-E- .M-,34K310/-E-4/-4DH6JM-2)LM3H,)0+-E-.M3H,)4M-2)0/-E-4/-4DH6 9--/253)EN=BKO APA+4Q+AR53)S53)ET+-E-U-V-1SERDE<L=:=>4FSGJ WXYZ[\]^_`abcdbbefdghafaiejdkgljbakdgmj`dnajogmpeqarqshgtddceaubobjdcvvwYXYZ\x[\ygiz{|}~gh gdi€€‚ƒ„ |†~liudbboglehdblhdj`dqgijdijabbemd‡ˆ ‰3-1+2-,1B1F2*-)SA-)),)D+55,EE,)31E@ A3-E3/)E,S3123,)G15-,)-)S13/553)S-,)E,)5*--/23S3314 Š3EF3/G*L ()*+,-),
PGCC 11-6-24

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950

ARCHITECTURE PLANNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COASTAL CONSULTANT 1 October 6, 2024
Chairman Donald Murphy
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
RE: October 10, 2024, Regular Calendar Item 8.A LCP Amendments – Coastal Hazards Dear Chair Murphy and Members of the Commission.
“To reduce potential impacts of future tsunamis, officials need to understand how communities are vulnerable to tsunamis . . . “ 1
DOES PHOTO (B) (above) LOOK FAMILIAR ?
“Photographs of Tsunami-prone areas of California . . . (B) Monterey…” 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report, California Geological Survey, 2012 Wood, Nathan, Ratliff, Jamie and Peters, Jeff, Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California.

PGCC 11-6-24

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950

ARCHITECTURE PLANNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COASTAL CONSULTANT 2 October 6, 2024
Planning Commission
RE: LCP Amendments – Coastal Hazards

“Submarine landslides are particularly dangerous in that they seldom offer much warning, making pre-tsunami preparation and evacuation difficult (Suleimani and others, 2009).

Tsunamigenic landslide sources include areas near Goleta, Palos Verdes, and Monterey Canyon . . .” 2
The California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Public Review Draft 2024 Update, states:
“They are rare events but can be extremely destructive when they occur. The extent of tsunami damage will increase as rising water levels allow tsunami waves to extend farther inland . . . the number and size of coastal subaerial landslides may increase because of increased coastal erosion due to sea level rise, which in turn may increase the potential for tsunamigenic landslides along the California coast.”
The Draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment Coastal Hazards Technical Refinements (AMENDMENT) should not rely on the narrative in the Land Use Plan that was based on the Climate Change and Vulnerability Analysis, 2015. Instead ,it should be written in terms of the findings in the City of Pacific Grove Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results August 19, 2024.

Furthermore, the AMENDMENT should be corrected to reflect the fact that the Pacific Grove Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) was completed in April 2020, and that the Coastal Hazards Modeling Technical Methods and Results, August 19, 2024, CHMTMR (2024) report by i n t e g r a l incorporated the SMP study by Moffat & Nichol (2020).

Please consider the following:
1) HAZ-6 which states, “The City will prepare a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) . . . “ should be corrected to read:

The City prepared the Pacific Grove Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), (April 2020), consistent with the parameters set forth in HAZ-2, and shall be used to guide the management of the public parklands along the shoreline while considering the effects of sea level rise, best protecting coastal resources, as well as circulation and utility infrastructure. The SMP, when approved by the Coastal Commission, will function as a tool to help maximize public access and protect coastal resources along the City’s shoreline.
2) The Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) (April 2020) effectively updated and replaced the Pacific Grove Coastal Parks Plan, adopted August 1998 regarding shoreline parks and coastal resources in the Coastal Zone. Update the SMP to be an Appendix to the LCP Land Use Plan. 3) HAZ-12. The LCP terminology references to the “lifetime” of a structure should be defined in terms of the number of years. In conditions for its CDPs, the Coastal Commission has used 75 years as the life of a structure, building or a remodel that could extend its lifetime. 2 Ibid, Page 2
PGCC 11-6-24

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950

ARCHITECTURE PLANNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COASTAL CONSULTANT 3 October 6, 2024
Planning Commission
RE: LCP Amendments – Coastal Hazards

4) The CHMTMR (2024) report states:
“Section 3.4 TASK 2.3 TIDAL INUNDATION FINDINGS Results from this analysis show that tidal inundation with 4 feet of sea level rise is not a significant threat to any developed land areas within the City. Tidal inundation may narrow beach widths and shift the rocky intertidal habitat areas to higher elevations, but no parcels or structures are at risk due to rising tides.”
However, Table 6 provides an informed estimate of the number of structures exposed to COASTAL WAVE HAZARDS associated with Sea Level Rise over the next 75 years. Except for the Gazebo 3 on the Asilomar State Park coastal trail, the Restrooms at Crespi Pond, and Hopkins Marine Station buildings, as many as Ten (10) Single Family Homes in the Coastal Zone are threatened between 2020 and 2060. Another Seven (7) homes are potentially at risk within 75 years (2100).
5) The CHMTMR (2024) report section 5, Next Steps & Recommendations is alarming. It recommends making “minor changes to the policy language as necessary,” but also to incorporate the revised hazard modeling findings from the CHMTMR (2024) into a “coastal hazard overlay”.

Therefore, the Draft Local Coastal Program AMENDMENT should include a “Coastal Wave Hazard Overlay Zone” based upon the CHMTMR (2024) report which should contain all of the following:
o A specific description of the type of structures exposed to coastal wave hazards to be protected and the reasons why the area has been designated as a “Coastal Wave Hazard Overlay Zone.”
o A specific list of significant adverse impacts that could result from development where zoning regulations alone may not adequately protect the structures or coastal resources or public access.
o A specific map of the area indicating its size and specific location. 6) Next Steps & Recommendations, Item 2. “Incorporate new hazard layers into a refined vulnerability assessment to map the potential vulnerabilities to the City’s roadways, recreational assets, public infrastructure, and critical facilities.” Without a doubt, this item should be at the top of the City of Pacific Grove’s TO DO LIST, and not kick it down the road to a yet-to-be-determined date. Without a sound infrastructure of streets and utilities, the residents and visitors to Pacific Grove are vulnerable to impacts of the winter storms and potential a tsunami. Identification and mapping of PG’s community assets in coastal hazard areas would provide insight critical for planning how to adapt and avoid adverse impacts and losses to the entire community.
3 The gazebo appears to be at risk of destruction well before the CHMTMR report’s estimate of 2060.

PGCC 11-6-24

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950

ARCHITECTURE PLANNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COASTAL CONSULTANT 4 October 6, 2024
Planning Commission
RE: LCP Amendments – Coastal Hazards

7) The USGS and CGS Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California report specifically addresses the number and type of residents in tsunami-prone areas in many of the coastal communities. The areas in Pacific Grove subject to Coastal Wave Hazards identified in the CHMTMR (2024) are the same neighborhoods and societal types that were described in the Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California report to be adversely impacted by tsunamis:
o The very young and very old are considered to be more vulnerable than other age groups to hazards because of potential mobility and or health issues. o While a relatively few people reside in Pacific Grove’s Coastal Wave Hazard zone, Pacific Grove’s public parks, recreation areas, and businesses (hotels and restaurants, etc.) are world renowned destinations that attract many visitors to the Monterey Peninsula who will be adversely impacted by Coastal Wave Hazards. o The 2013 predicted tsunami run-up from a Monterey Canyon Landslide for the Monterey Peninsula is 15.09 Feet High and from the Aleutians is 15.74 Feet. “tsunami damage will increase as rising water levels allow tsunami waves to extend farther inland . . .” 4
o Map the inland extent of potential tsunami waves FOR THE YEAR 2100.

It should be included in the Amended LCP Land Use Plan. Tsunamis wave forces are more than wind waves.
5 In conclusion, the CHMTMR (2024) scientific studies was a first step. The Pacific Grove LCP Land Use Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinances are an aggregation of complex interrelated parts.

Therefore, the next steps should be for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to amend the agreement with i n t e g r a l, to complete Section 5 NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS, including activities required to implement the City CIPs, Shoreline Management Plan Update, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Respectfully,
Anthony A. Ciani
Cc: City Council
Coastal Commission
4 California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Public Review Draft 2024 Update 5 The tsunami on Jan. 15, 2022, hit Santa Cruz, California, 12 hours and 12 minutes after the initial eruption in Tonga. Santa Cruz is 5,280 miles (8,528 kilometers) from Tonga, which means that the tsunami traveled at 433 mph (697 kph). As a tsunami approaches land, the ocean gets progressively shallower and all the wave energy that extended thousands of feet to the bottom of the deep ocean gets compressed. This can cause flooding and very strong currents that can easily sweep people, cars and buildings away. (Warner, Sally, What causes a tsunami? An ocean scientist explains the physics of these destructive waves. 19 January 2022) PGCC 11-6-24

 










!
"#
!



$
%
$

&'
$ (
)*+
,-.*-
/.0-.*-10-.*-.203-40245067 8
94:
;<=>=?<?@
;<AB;
CD EF.**-*G
,66-HH-*
/I.**-*G066-HH-*10-+JI.0-J-0G2K452G7 
,-+
,*0-
D46L42H
/0-+0*0-10-+JI.0-J-0G2K452G7M
N42O
P.-41,.H. /P.-45N4210.H.50.5GK7M
P.3*O
P4K-*1,.H.
/P4K-*5P.3*10.H.50.5GK7 QRSTUVWX

YZ[\
]^\\_`^
ab[`[c_d^e
afd\[e^
ag
dZ^
h[di
ag
j_k[lk
mban^
^]_[o
\i\d^]
pp
qS
RST
VrUVs
ac
tuvwx
ab ay^c
z{z|}~v€x
fco^\\
iaf
_b^
\fb^
dZ^
kacd^cd
[\
\_g^‚ ƒ4.2
F.**-*G
,66-HH-*42HO „
.6

2--*G

J

I

-3
.

J4

240664*:.-*H

34
I2IH4:
†‡ˆ‰
Š‹ ŒŽ‡‹‡Ž
Š‘’
“‹ˆ
”ŠŽ•
†Š–ˆ•
ŒŠ—˜
™”†Œš
›˜’œ˜’œˆ
†Š–ˆ•
žŸ–  ’Ž¡œ‡Ž•
¢’‹‡œ’˜’œˆ–
-*0:-*GA £š
£¤£¥
¦¢§¨©ª”ª«
¬­¦“
¨©
ž¦
”›©“
¬­¦
Œ”›©
†‡ˆ‡Ž•
Œ®¯•‡Ž ¨œ‹–ˆ®Žˆ®’°
†ª§§¦© °
C::
34

2:
±­ŠŽ‡•±
ˆŠ
’°
F204HH4HO
H+H46HO
J.0---4HO 403*G-4HO
*4
2HO
.HH4HO
.*:

H42K-04H
4HH4*-.

34

34.3O
H.J4+O
H402-+O œ
–ŠŽ‡•²
40*6-0

4³L4-*G
J
34
,-+5 ´š

ž›µ¶£´¤
“’‘’•Š·˜’œˆ
·Š·Š–’
‡œ
·Šˆ’œˆ‡•
¡Ÿ
’– †ª§§¦© °
)34
,.-J2*-.
,.H.
,66-HH-*¸H
†‡ˆ‡Ž•
¨œ‹–ˆ®Žˆ®’
ˆ
¢‡–¹°
­’ ”’‘’•
¢‡–’
Œ•œœ‡œ—
®‡œŽ’
‹Š
†•‡‹Šœ‡º–
†Š–ˆ•
µŠœ’

.H
*.*-6H+ .:I4:

L+
34
,.-J2*-.
,.H.
,66-HH-*
*
»K46L42
;¼O
?<?;5 ½3IHA==:064*H50.H.50.5GK=.HH4H=H2=¾¿ÀÁ?<Â-:.*04Ã,2--0.Á?<„*J2.H2024Ã;?5Ä5?<?;5I:JÅ F.0-J-0
Â2K4ÆH
¿,F
¿.*:

ÇH4
F.*
24È-24H
.
32G3
4:-

-*02I2.4

34 ,66-HH-*¸H
240664*:.-*H
J2
3

.
0.

GK42*64*

0.*
.::24HH
H4.
4K4 2-H4
-HH4H
-*
¿0.
,.H.
F2G2.6H
½¿,FHÅ
0*H-H4*

-3
34
,.H.
C0

I24I.24 -H
I-0-4H
.*:
2:-*.*04H5 ¢’—‡œ—
ž›µ¶£´²
0*H-:42
.::-*G


34
ÉÊËÌÊÍÎÏ
ÍÐ
ÑÒÓÔÒ
ÓÎ
ÕÍ
ÏÖÎËÌÏ
ÕÒ×Õ
ÎËÔÒ ØÏÙÏÚÍÊÛÏÖÕ
Ô×Ö
ÜÏ
ÜËÓÚÕ
ÓÖ
×
Û×ÖÖÏÌ
ÔÍÖÎÓÎÕÏÖÕ
ÑÓÕÒ
×ÊÊÚÓÔ×ÜÚÏ
ÝÞß
ÔÍ×ÎÕ×Ú
Ò×à×ÌØÎ PGCC 11-6-24